Statements of the Week, 2000

January 2nd

Well, now I've really done it. I failed to update the page for so long that traffic has slowed to a trickle. (If a statement of the week falls in the forest and no one reads it, does it make an impact?) But despite lack of readership, despite Juspera's absence in the game, increasing my commitment to update the page doesn't feel futile. How else am I to coax people back? I'd like to get my ten thousandth visit before 2021.

So look for new material each week. With no direct link to the Elanthia I'll have to be creative, of course. Look for new takes on old standards. Look for contests and reader-submitted material (and participate!). And perhaps most delightfully, look for new original artwork courtesy of the lovely scanner Santa was kind enough to provide me. Oh, and do tell your friends about the site.

January 16th

This doesn't concern GemStone directly but I think it's vaguely relevant to the lives of gamers... I read a rather silly letter to the editor in my local paper recently (at least, to me it was silly) by a woman claiming that Pokemon teaches our children to take cute, benign little animals and torture them until they become viscious killers. I truly wish I had the original letter, but I'm afraid I recycled it like a good citizen. Maybe she's right... but by golly, I don't think so. In the spirit of self-righteousness I dashed off the following letter, which was printed by the newspaper in a matter of days:

It's amazing how our awareness of children's toys and books has grown over the years; imagine if we had only applied to the pursuits of yesteryear the same watchful scrutiny we apply to Pokemon and the Harry Potter books. What are toy soldiers but tiny mock-ups of killers that taught children violence? How about Legos and Play-doh, which taught that buildings and people can be gruesomely torn apart and put back together, no harm done? Or C.S. Lewis's famed Chronicles of Narnia, which are chock-full blasphemy such as magic, witches and other nonwholesome fare?

Do I sound ridiculous yet?

The only difference between our children's Harry Potter and Pokemon and our own childhood pursuits is that we grew up with ours. We knew then what we've since apparently forgotten: that we learned "lessons" from our parents and teachers, not from our toys. There are (and always have been) superviolent or -sexual media to which no child should be exposed; but the scrutiny we extend to many of today's harmless pursuits isn't awareness. It's paranoia.

January 30th

We have finally reached ten thousand visits! I'm sure at least fifty of them are mine, but we all know I'm a fan of my site too. Thanks to everyone who helped us reach this milestone! Continue to spread the word of this site. I don't aggressively advertise it myself--more out of laziness than anything else--so it's up to you all to keep the count rising.

This week (or last week, as I'm typically late in writing this) I managed to mess up my computer so bad I had to do the product recovery thing. I lost a bunch of data, including some things pertaining to GS, but on the bright side my scanner works again.

What can we expect from this website in the future? Pretty much more of the same, which could of course be good or bad, depending on your preferences. I'm running out of amusing old logs, so I'll either have to start playing again or pleading for more viewer submissions, which I always welcome anyway. In fact, I encourage participation of any sort. These contests aren't quite the same when I'm the only one entering.

February 6th

Hey, I'm on time this week. I've been getting a few pleas for Juspera to return to the game. I was tempted to follow someone's suggestion to make this month's top ten list "Top Ten Reasons Juspera Should Return to Elanthia," but I thought that would be self-centered even for me. (I admit I chuckled at #4, "Other people are now dying during Aspis house hunts.") I still don't know whether I'm going to cancel my account, but a recent influx of funds means I can wait a couple months before deciding.

February 13th

I was browsing some of the more negatively toned or downright anti-GemStone websites this week. I can't lump them all together. Some are smart, some hope to make the game better; some aren't and don't. It's the most blatantly hateful pages that stirred me to write this week, generally falling into one or some of three categories: "Simu is evil," "GemStone sucks, other games are much better" and "GemStone players are losers who have no life, unlike me."

I can think of good reasons to hate a person or a school of thought. And there are, maybe, good reasons to hate a company. But a company that provides no vital service, that holds no monopoly, whose worst sin is a possibly lackluster product and poor customer service? Or a game in which people don't even get hurt? (Unless you count emotionally, which I dare say the player has most of the control over.)

I can think of good reasons to love both these things (not Simu, of course, but a hypothetical company). Love, anyway, comes easier to us than hate. Something need move us a great deal to truly earn our hate--not hate as in "I hate it when they always cut to a commercial during the exciting parts," but real, venemous hate.

I'm in no position to say whether the hate expressed on some anti-GemStone websites is real, but it's certainly venemous. To spend so much effort on a dissertation of how the players of a computer game are moronic losers who need to get over their sick obsession and get a real life... that would seem to require a far stronger obsession with the game than the author is claiming his subjects to have. Where is the need to create a website to damn to hell a small company that rarely does anything worse than answer our feedback five months late? Where's the need to expend so much effort slamming a (harmless) pursuit no one's making you participate in? What is the need?

I would venture that it's not altruism.

Julia Houston, guide of startrek.about.com (and fan--like myself--of another institution that seems to be a hate magnet) has explored the question of what drives people to come to the web and expel their bile at other people's pastimes. She writes, "Talking about how 'I love this' or 'I love that' about Star Trek isn't nearly as safe in a chatroom or on a board as 'This sucks,' and 'This bites.' I see people all the time praising the show and then being put in a defensive position while others attack the show and them for liking the show. I don't mean to sound too uncool myself, but the Internet, as much as I adore it, can be a very unfriendly place to people who sound even slightly uncynical."

And I'd say she's on to something. Depending on what crowd you figure yourself with, it's definitely fashionable to hate certain things. It's "in" to hate AOL. Cool to love Star Wars and hate Star Trek--so much that I automatically hated the shows myself, before I discovered their charms (and how ethereal my "reasons" for previous dislike) and wondered how I'd let myself be led around by the nose for so long.

Most people on the web don't even know what GemStone III is, but among MUDders, there is a definite undercurrent of "GemStone sucks, RoE/Inferno/whatever rules." In fact, I left Realms of Exile because the anti-GS sentiment there at the time was so outrageous; I find unpleasant an atmosphere where folks are constantly and obsessively bashing something, no matter what that thing is. Of course GS is a little sloppier than some other games... but when I don't like a game, I just don't play it. I don't like chess, but I have yet to create a chess website with essays proclaiming chess sucks sweat off a sailor's ass, Kasparov is a pansy and anyone who plays is a loser. I just don't care enough. And anyway... I have nothing to prove.

February 20th

This weekend I attended another player gathering in Massachusetts (hence the late update). We had quite a few DragonRealms players this time, and at least one Inferno player, and I found myself being recruited. It's hard not to agree to try another game when people downright beg. But maybe you know how it is... you only have so much time, and you don't want to put it into learning another system. Even if you knew you'd like it once you started playing... if your spare time is already filled up with an activity you like, where's the need for another?

Though that's not the only thing keeping me from "going over to the dark side" even for a visit. It ties in with what I talked about last week. I have a fear, justified or not, of running into the anti-GemStone sentiment I've seen so often in other games. People hearing I'm new and whispering to me that their game has caring game masters, unlike GS. That it hasn't got snerts, unlike GS. That it's got people who actually roleplay... unlike GS.

I try to ignore graceless remarks but it's hard not to be offended. Besides the avarice or all-out blindness inherent in claiming GemStone's GMs don't care or there are no snerts in this game--whichever game this is--it's adding insult to ignorance to tell me that no one in GemStone bothers to roleplay. It's a rare day I'm not working on being the best roleplayer I can and trying to get it to rub off, and I know hundreds of others who do the same. And those are just the people I know. What's more, while the average player in other games may get a higher grade in roleplaying than GemStone's, nowhere else have I seen anywhere close to the level of sheer talent in our best. To hear someone dismiss in one breath all those who work so hard is enough to make the new game du jour leave a bad taste in my mouth. And of course it's not the game's fault... but who wants to play in a place where you don't feel respected?

Maybe my fears are for nothing this time. "It's happened before" may be cause for a bit of blustering, but I hope I don't condemn too heavily what I haven't tried yet. The non-GS folks at the gathering joked about how sad and sorry GemStone is, but it was all in good fun. They know GS has good spots and bad spots, just like their own games. Here's hoping my forays into other realms are met with the same appreciation.

March 12th

Since I've been very busy with other things lately, the statement of the week this week will be supplied by Lord Tanzra, who took enough interest in past statements to respond. While it may not contain outrageous groundbreaking new ideas, perhaps it's worthwhile reading simply as a look at the thoughts of a player/programmer besides myself. Commencing:

The following editorial is not intended to nor does it represent the views of Juspera or her better half.

I offer my opinion to the Statement of the Week for February 13 and the 20. While I was unable to attend the gathering during the weekend of the 20th of February 2000, I was in attendance at one that was at a friend's house in July of 1999 and I was with the group who attended the Maryland Renaissance Fair in October 1999. I myself have made such comments about Gemstone, but I would never base mine solely on the populace's ability to role play. And much the same words mentioned earlier can be attributed to Dragonrealms as well. Even Simutronics' best game (Dragonrealms) has its share of snerts (and for those who don't believe me, have someone send you posts from the Dragonrealms BBS).

There are three different types of people in every game out there. They are the role players, the non-role players, and snerts. The difference between non-role players and snerts? Snerts disrupt the enjoyment of the game for other people. Non-role players do not interrupt the enjoyment for others (the Golden Rule applies to them). There is no RP player only game, and there is no PvP only game and no one can escape snerts, no matter the game involved. And there is no way to control who plays in a particular game. I, myself, have had many disputes with my coworkers over PvP and "Non-Role Players." It all comes down to what makes a game worthwhile, either as a player or a coder/designer. Is it the people or is the game's environment and mechanics that makes a game worth playing/designing for or makes it an enjoyable experience away from the eccentricities of real life.

Its comes down each person's individual choice as to what they prefer. Role play is not an absolute means of measuring the balance of a game's playability and camaraderie between the players. And it should not be used as so. When I judge a game, I look at how easy the combat system is to learn and use, the intricacies of the economic system, the depth of the history and the lands it encompasses, and then I look at my fellow adventurers. I look there last simply due to the fact that I have never been one to make friends easily. I have met many people (Howlinbear, Juspera, Dremerie, Simu-Andy, GM-Ophion, GM-Solomon, Bestatte, Spaetzle, few others) in real life. But how often do my characters interact with them in Gemstone or Dragonrealms? Never. (I've interacted with Dremerie once or twice.)

Alas I digress...

What defines role play to you? What defines bad role play? Good role play? Is there really a distinction between bad role play and good role play? Perhaps, and perhaps not.. While someone may be a hateful role player, its not necessarily a allusion to them being a bad role player. Role play should have extreme limits...and the line between role play and when it ceases to be role play should be a thin red line. I speak here of all the Bleeds wannabes, their inane attempts to say they were here before Bleeds and his subsequent inquiries into their sanity. But that's only the observations of my warrior, cleric or rogue, and hearsay from Dremerie's stories when we meet in real life. Great role players are not an absolute either. While someone may be a great role player to you, they may be a rolton to me. Its all perception and opinions. Few are the great ones who've mastered the art over time and teach others to do the same.

Judging a game solely on how much role play goes on is like judging a book by its cover. Many times have I slipped a little when playing my characters. But just because I do not like the way a percentage of the people role play is no reason to judge a game. There is more to a game than the people in involved. Sure, a game is designed to be appealing to the players. But where in that philosophy is it designated that the appeal of a game extends to the quality of other people you interact with? If you do not like the way some people play, ignore them, but do not belittle a game simply in retaliation to the few people in the game that you do not like.

Again, the preceding was not intended to be, nor does it, represent the views of Juspera or her better half.

Lord Tanzra

March 19th

I've been quite busy again this week, so here we have a little something Nevrek submitted (beware subliminal messages):

GemStone III is the most "popular" multi-player game of all time (for ages 3 to 13). It looks like [a] MUD, but there's never been anything else like GemStone III before - a living world of swords and sorcery, with more than 20,000 locations to explore.

GemStone III is not about killing other players.(?) Join forces with them and explore the world. Make friends for life, battle monsters (levels, levels, levels!), discover treasures (or pay real money for them!). And GemStone III is a **kid-friendly environment**, with 24-hour coverage by our ***dedicated staff***.

Imagine an online game with hundreds or even thousand[s] of people all 'sharing' the same world. That's what we've created with GemStone III.

You are a hero (or other cookie cutter character). Create your character. Take a name (we recommend something with Juju or Killa in it), pick your race (halfing wizards, dark elf sorcerers!) and profession (vulture, power hunter, etc). Customize your appearance (all black is very popular, so is spidersilk). In this world, everyone is different(ish), be unique (if possible).

If you can type, you can play (a PERFECT example of how the internet is TOO easy to get onto and use). GemStone III uses the same acclaimed game engine as other Simutronics role-playing games (it's cost effective).

If you've played in MUD[s], or used chat rooms (yeah! :), you'll be right at home here. You can choose hundreds of actions (hug people five times!). Interact with the world and with the other players (and children).

This game is not about killing players (though it does pass the time). It's a fun and cooperative (competitive) environment. Make friends. Fall in love (wnt 2 CyBR w/ me???). We're not kidding. This game is so compelling, you'll find yourself coming back, just to be with your friends (the main reason people stay, despite our decline).

Explore the world. Form hunting parties with your friends, fight your way past evil creatures, and find great treasures and magical items. The more you play, the more you'll advance, gaining items, abilities, and rank in the game world.

April 2nd

As you might have guessed, I've been busy again lately. I'm sorry if I haven't been able to get to some of the logs sent in. In fact, I've been too busy to think. So I haven't any ideas for a statement this week. I went to a gaming convention last weekend, but even that writhing mass of gaming humanity didn't stir anything up. I got a free Gencon '86 t-shirt. I've never been to Gencon. I've never been to Wisconsin. I also got a free Spider-Man adventure book. I won a cooler with the convention logo on it for my roleplaying. Someone gave me 15 bags of black gum. I'm not really sure what to do wih it all.

You see J the Human geek.
She appears to be in her 20's.
She has black teeth, black lips and a black tongue.
She is carrying a Spider-Man adventure book.
She is wearing a red Gencon '86 t-shirt.

...nah.

April 9th

This week we go offsite for our statement.

April 23rd

Rather belatedly, I've found my statement of the week. On a programmers' board a discussion arose about how players are more likely to complain in a pay-for-play game than in a free-play game. One poster's offering began with:

"Personally, I prefer MUDs where you pay to play. Because games like EQ are a busines venture, the admin bends over backwards to try to make as many people as possible happy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this in my book. I see way to many amateur MUDs that bite because of the admin. There attitude is that, "I designed this game and you are playing on my server. If you want to keep playing then you had better tread lightly."" He shares his hatred of long lists of rules in MUDs, and continues: "These "my way or the highway" games are for the birds. Game gods who think they are performing a public service by running a game and who think they are being generous just for letting you play are in it for the wrong reasons."

I'm at rather the opposite end of the issue. I think administrators of a free game who believe they must please the players, that the players are doing THEM a favor by playing their game, are in it for the wrong reasons, and I applaud any administrator with the mentality he dislikes.

Any game I create will likely be a free-play game, a "my way or the highway" game, because I do not have the time or the inclination (or the paycheck) to deal with troublemakers or cater to everyone's wish. The game is made to appeal specifically to one type of player, no disrespect meant to the other types. I hope that anyone disliking my rules feels free to leave for one of the 20,000 other games on the net, without taking offense where none was meant. There are a thousand different kinds of games out there; the stuffy, well-regulated game is one of them, and one many people enjoy.

As for administrators who seem to think they're doing us all a favor... they're not? Someone who goes to the trouble of setting up a free game I can choose to play--no matter how terrible the game is--has taken nothing away from me and possibly added a great deal. They have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their creations... and I not only support it, I encourage it. I don't even think it's arrogance; I think it's practicality.

I encourage everyone to make your games for YOU, not for your players. I definitely do not see running a free MUD as dutifully providing a service that the masses have a right to and deserve. We are not mules yoked to the web. We are creating because we enjoy it, and if others enjoy our creations, bully for them.

April 30th

Recently I was chastised by someone for not taking part in a player-run "take over the town" roleplaying event, where a handful of strangers invaded (or "invaded") the town Juspera was staying in. I was, I gather, expected to roleplay defending the town from these invaders. There are a number of reasons why I don't like player-run town invasions, none of which I need to go into, so I left town for the duration. I was then criticized for being OOC by ignoring what was going on in town.

I was shocked. Criticize someone for being out-of-character because they didn't join an optional RP event? (And I do believe events are and should continue to be optional.) I've heard people say it's poor roleplaying to go against one's character by joining an incongruous event just to get GM attention or items--like a Ronanite getting involved in a quest to worship Sheru--but that it's poor roleplaying just to pass up an event? This was new to me.

My critic also upbraided non-participants for not joining in because there isn't enough RPing in the game and, presumably, we were part of the problem by not supporting this player-run event. Suddenly I realized I could no longer justify my quiet prejudice against folks who play the game just to hunt and never interact with anyone.

My defense against my actions was as follows:

First, it was in-character for Juspera to ignore the invasion, as she saw the invaders as a couple of hooligans trying to get attention, not as a real threat.

But that doesn't matter... because second, roleplaying isn't the end-all-be-all of the game. It's damn stupid, in my opinion, to participate in an RP event that's no fun just so your character will remain consistent.

Third: if we start condemning people for not participating in events their character logically should join, well... whose logic are we going by here? Am I to be decried as a bad roleplayer because I didn't take Juspera to Icemule for a thieving contest someone thinks my character would definitely join if she were real? What if I decide I'm sick of playing GS during an invasion and leave... am I a bad roleplayer because Juspera supposedly loves invasions? (My reasoning also casts suspicion on the practice of calling folks bad roleplayers because they do take part in events we think go against their character--which, I say, is as it should be.)

And if I declare that I am not a bad roleplayer for avoiding not just events I think are run poorly or go against Juspera's character, but ANY event I choose, then I must also admit that I cannot condemn our powerhunter for declining to take part, even if he does it continually.

Now, "sleeping" in public, ignoring people who speak to you or acting like nothing's going on in the middle of an invasion is a kind of bad-roleplaying-by-default (unless you have a darn good reason for it). But simply avoiding events, neither contributing to nor taking away from the enjoyment of the participants... there's nothing wrong with that. (As for saying a player IS taking away from an event by not participating... we're only talking potential, not reality. Do we really want to bully people into joining events just because the other participants might have more fun? Make individuals responsible for strangers' happiness?)

There are still many things I think constitute poor roleplaying, never fear, but avoiding events or even participating in events others think go against character don't belong to that category. And while I cannot criticize individuals for declining to RP, I wish the game were more interested in attracting and rewarding those who do.

May 7th

There's been a discussion on one of Simu's boards about "predators" in the game who seek out new characters, lead them to a private place and commence sexually explicit behavior (or a variation thereof). Since no one could post any logs, it was hard to tell exactly how much was explicit and how much was an essentially harmless attempt at seduction, but if the posters were being truthful there was definitely some reportable behavior going on.

The posters' responses to their encounters varied. Some had just laughed at their "suitor" and walked out. Some had reported him or her (characters of both sexes indulged in the "predator" behavior, though of course it's impossible to know the sex of the player). And at least one killed the offender.

Andraste, the reigning GM on the board, seemed aghast at the dearth of reporting. She and a few other posters echoed one point: the offending behavior may not be threatening to you, but what about to someone who's new to the game? What about to a minor? While a Simu account holder must be 18 due to contract issues, a person of any age may play, for better or worse. And while killing the offender may make his subject feel better, it does little more to stop his behavior than does laughing and walking away.

When deciding whether to report, don't just think about how you're being affected by the situation in question. Think about new players, about minors, about characters who aren't high enough in level to defend themselves. A homicidal maniac in light leather and a heavy backpack can't hurt Juspera, but there are people out there he could. People I don't want to see leave the game because I chose not to report this moron who didn't threaten me personally.

Some folks don't report because they believe it doesn't have any effect. Sometimes it doesn't; but every report goes on record, and in the future, GMs may look back to see that so-and-so has an awful lot of people pissed off. Furthermore, even if no GMs are "on duty" there are almost certainly some around who will hear reports.

Some don't report because it seems like a sissy thing to do, like a tattletale on the playground. Well, sometimes it is (I'm sure the staff gets sick of hearing "i attacked darkwarior because he stole my thrak then he killed me help me" reports). Sometimes it's not. I know a lot of folks like to deal with their own problems (which tends to involve killing or at least binding/webbing/stunning), but I exhort everyone to remember that unless he's stopped by GMs, your problem is going to keep causing problems for others... possibly others not quite as well-equipped to deal as you. If you let a genuinely disruptive player go unreported because you're bent on solving all your own problems, it can hurt everyone else in the game. It makes it harder for the GMs to do their job, and insures GS will have a harder time attracting new players and keeping the old ones.

Some don't report because, they say, it's OOC. I'm not sure what that means so it's hard to address it. If they mean it's poor roleplaying... how is it any worse than whispering OOC info? If they mean it's responding to character conflicts with a player reaction... how is it any worse than posting about in-game events on the boards? The main thing is that the report stays out of the IC action. Saying, "I 'm gonna report you" to the offender isn't a great idea for more than reason.

Andraste stresses that it's useless to report if you've got the offender stunned, or if you let him/her know you've reported... offenders tend to clam up after that. The GMs need to see the behavior (though reports after the fact will at least go on record and could help them identify someone who's been a long-term troublemaker).

I don't mean to make it every player's responsibility to police the game. It's the staff's responsibility. But it's hard for them to do their job if problems don't get reported. So when someone's genuinely harrassing you in the game, even if you can deal with him/her yourself please consider reporting. It's analogous to real life. If someone assaulted you in real life and you defended yourself easily, it'd still be a mite irresponsible to let the event go unreported. If you notify the authorities, it's not because you're a whiner who can't deal with your own problems. It's because you don't want what happened to you to happen to someone who isn't quite as prepared to deal with it.

I always hate to see people leave the game because of jerks who should have been identified and locked out long ago.

May 14th

This week I thought I'd write about one of my "pet peeves" in GemStone. Something that might not hurt the game all that much but annoys me terribly. And no, this hasn't happened in several months, which is why I'm choosing to write about it... I don't want anyone to feel like they're being targeted specifically.

I hate it when someone "leaves the lands," supposedly for good, and gives away (or sells) their items, then returns a few months later and asks for their items back. In fact, I know a lot of folks hate it when someone simply says they're leaving for good then comes back, but I don't mind that so much. That's just a mistake. But giving away your items, then asking for them back? That's plain tasteless.

I have had someone give items to me before leaving the game, come back months later as another character and ask for the items to be returned. I have bought items in a massive leaving-the-lands auction, only to be begged months later that I please consider selling the items back.

I'm not cruel. I give the items back if it's not too much trouble. I suppose that's my problem. If I were heartless, I wouldn't care if people freely gave their belongings, said they were never coming back, then came back and tried to guilt-trip me into returning the objects. I'd just laugh and walk away.

But I'm not cruel. I understand that people don't want to see their lovely items go to waste, that they would rather give them away then let them be deleted with the character. I understand if people believe they're leaving the game for good, then have a change of heart later on. And I understand wanting one's old items back in that case. But Miss Manners herself would be truly appalled at the number of people who have committed such an astounding breach of etiquette as to ask for the items back, and even try to make the person the items were willingly gifted to feel bad for not returning them.

Since I don't anticipate folks suddenly becoming responsible for their actions, accepting the consequences and moving on, I hope I might make a suggestion. If you're leaving the game and you don't want your items to go to waste, ask people to hold them for you until you return, no matter how sure you are you'll never return. If your qualm about items isn't that they'll go to waste, just that they'll be deleted, keep the items and ask Simu to archive your character.

I will do my part as well. The next time someone offers me an item because he or she is leaving the lands, I will make sure to tell them I shan't be giving the item back, no matter what; a tactless defense against a tasteless practice. And the giver will say, "Oh, I won't be coming back," of course.

May 28th

I'm sorry I haven't gotten to update this for a couple weeks. Here goes!

Recently there was a discussion on the boards about all of Teras standing around doing nothing while someone decayed in a hunting area, though everyone knew the hunter was there. Someone posted in response along the lines of "With so many people getting angry at clerics and empaths for vulturing, is it any wonder no one wants to help anymore?"

I didn't buy it. The number of complaints about vultures has gone up as surely as the number of people who don't care about helping others, but--as the scientists say--correlation doesn't mean causation. One situation is not necessarily causing the other. I believe they're both caused by the same thing, in fact: the huge size of the game, which promotes social decay. And I had another bone to pick with the notion that "no one seems to want me to, so I won't" is a good enough reason not to help. Here's the post I made:

I want to be helped. I want to be chatted with and asked questions, I want to be treated like a person. I don't want a mute zombielike cleric or empath treating me like a throwaway object there for his or her gain. I don't want to be vultured.

It distresses me when people twist this message and use it as an excuse not to help folks. It distresses me when people decide "No one seems to want my help, so I'll ignore everyone" when they could simply ask each person if help was desired. It distresses me when people take one bad experience and apply it to every new situation. It disturbs me when people say others are "making them not want to help people"... like the responsibility for their actions lies not with them but with every yahoo who makes a remark on the amunet. "If I don't help others, it's not *my* fault."

Those who want to help will find a way. Those who don't will find excuses. If everyone stopped complaining about vultures and being helped without consent, the only thing that would change would be the excuses people use to justify their lack of desire to help.

June 11th

I'm debating whether I should apologize for not updating the page last week, or whether my apologies are becoming a little too routine and I should just move on and get to this week's update. Today our statement of the week comes from one of the debates on the big discussions with Simu board.

Someone had posted asking why we were forced to tank up on spells and multi-account (his answer was a clip of a like-aged creature killing him on a 108 roll). I replied with something along the lines of "If there's a wayward philosophy here, it's not on the part of the game designers." Not too confrontational, eh?

There followed some discussion about how it's next to impossible for legends to hunt with self-cast spells only. I shone my spotlight on such tactics as hunting in a group, stancing effectively, running away when necessary, and accepting that some--or all--critters your age may not be ideal for hunting. A chorus of "yeah but--"s followed. When I reiterated that we all have options, that no one is forcing us to tank up or multi-account, the rebuttals were altered to "we are forced to either do those things or die too much."

I am left with powerful reinforcement of the knowledge that we all develop a certain sense of entitlement from the game. How much is "too much"? When and how did we develop our own notion of how much dying is enough? We say it's all about fun, an equation of enjoyment, we can only die so often before the game stops being fun. I have my doubts about that. If players had died as much through their career, from the beginning, as they say they do in the new stronghold area, I doubt they'd all have quit the game. I believe they'd have gotten used to that frequency of death (and may even have protested on the boards if death were made less frequent).

But this is not how things have worked out, and in the end it doesn't matter all that much. What matters is that some people apparently do feel that the GMs--by making hard critters--are forcing players to tank up on spells and cheat at the game, an idea that's extraordinarily detrimental to GS (and one that has cause and effect backwards, as far as I'm concerned). If you can't survive a hit in offensive while hunting alone against something your age, for goodness' sakes either hunt something else, maybe something younger, or hunt with others, or don't let yourself be hit in offensive.

And if there ever comes a time when even while doing all of the above you cannot learn from any creature in the game, do explain your case to the GMs. If no one listens (and you've been polite), then you might consider tanking up on spells. But quit the game before you cheat with multiple accounts. If you honestly feel like you're being forced to cheat--that you have no other options--then GS isn't a very good game, is it?

July 2nd

I got caught up in Diablo fever last week and rather pathetically purchased the original Diablo since my computer's far too old for the second installment. I'm fond of hack & slash graphical games but I do prefer turn-based combat. Well, it was only $10.

In the multiplayer department, I am awestruck at the staggering lack of literacy among the Battle.net participants. Even dismissing the abbreviations and lack of punctuation as harmless typing shortcuts, there's the sheer inability of 95% of the population to spell 50% of their vocabulary. If I could confirm that everyone was under 8 years old, I wouldn't be so impressed, but I think--judging by the names--most of the players are somewhat older than that. (Or these are some very foul-mouthed 8-year-olds.)

And then there's the fact that so many of the players seem interested in nothing more than killing you (usually with cheats, in my case) and taking your things. It's not a big deal since--unlike Gemstone--one may choose one's playing companions, but it is annoying. And while the two may be vastly different games, it makes me grateful that the players of my number one game have at least a passing acquaintance with civility and English. Any visit to a free MUD tends to bring about the same result. A reminder that while there's plenty to complain about in GS, it could certainly be a lot worse.

July 9th

Ode to Crappy-ass Roleplaying

Harmless in halves, ironic whole,
With gentle oxymoron soul,
Which word is more a poster for
Our subject than the dear "e-scroll"?

"Do not malign me," e-scroll cries,
"It's not my fault my substance lies!
They stole the e-less part of me
And left me with 'lectronic ties."

We will not spite you, weird old word,
When worse incongruousness we've heard.
Says turnip cad, "Aye, lag is bad,"
Both hypocritic and absurd.

Though blatant OOC is damned
Alone, a special hell is planned
(Where "ye" and "aye, lass!" go to die)
For roleplaying with ook in hand.

Statement of the week, July 30th

I just haven't been able to keep up with the updates. I haven't even been playing GS, so I have no kind of statement to make about it this week. But thanks to my loyal readers, I do have some new material to put up and I will continue to as long as people keep sending me things.

August 6th

In lieu of a real statement of the week, I offer an old post of mine I found about character optimization:

The problem with any system often isn't with the system itself but with the people taking part.

There will always be players who desire to optimize themselves and who will find ways to do it. The result is a lack of balance. We can make it so the average character has just the right amount of difficulty in playing the game, meaing the optimized will shoot up through the ranks easily and gain more rewards... or we can make it so the optimized character has just the right amount of difficulty, meaning the average will have a hard time. Wherever people desire to be perfect, the average will suffer--and people will always desire to be perfect.

The best we can do is make sure that perfection can never be achieved, which is hard in a game where your starting rolls are random. If everyone had the same number of points to allot to stats it would be easier. But even so, we can do a little; one of the things we can do is make all skills useful. We know that no matter how many training points you have, you can't train in everything. Another thing we can do (and a thing you see hardly any of in the game) is making it so that _lower_ stats and levels of training have advantages in some places.

A creature that sometimes can't see you well enough to attack you if your aura is low. A defensive spell that can be cast on others only if that person's discipline is low. An area you can get into only if the guards at the gate know you have poor skill with weapons. Voila... rewards for people who have made mistakes in training.

Do we want to reward people who've made mistakes in training? I dunno... but I do want the game to send the message that mistakes are okay and you can survive fine with them, and I'm not sure it's doing that now.

August 13th

There's been a lot of discussion on the boards about people turning into animals, impossible-seeming ACT commands, and the like. The general consensus is that it's fine to have your character believe she's the offspring of Arkati, just don't ask anyone else to believe it. Some members of the opposing camp hold the notion that the rest of us are simply lacking in creativity and, perhaps, wet blankets besides. There follows my response to a post by Lylia's player about why ACT commands like (Juspera turns into a bat and flies off!) might not be appropriate for GS. I received some positive feedback on it, and so am re-inflicting it on everyone here:

I don't know that the reasons given for shunning ultracreativity hold up... after all, there's no farmer class in the mangler, but I can certainly play a farmer. And I am loath to tell people not to do something (well) just because others with less skill will try to copy it (poorly). I don't see it as either coloring within or without the lines... I see a subtle gradation between the two poles. But I and Lauren are of a mind; we both prefer the kind of creative constructs here that come from being forced to think within a box.

We need to work harder at our reasons why it's okay to play a farmer but not a daugher of Ivas. I have trouble expressing it myself. I am in danger of giving only the impression that I simply can't bear to see people roleplaying differently than I do.

There are two reasons I prefer not to see: (Yagut dissolves into a puddle of mud and disappears). I believe the unfettered ability to create will result in inferior art, while creativity forced through rules will result in a generally more brilliant product. This is, I admit, a bit elitist. But I do write, and there's some wonderful stuff I never would have come up with if I hadn't been forced to find a rhyme for "guava" or to squeeze my essay down to 200 words, condensing the meaning.

Perhaps it's because a person must be truly talented to do free-form well. Everyone is familiar with the saying "learn the rules before you break them," and I think that holds for roleplaying too. e. e. cummings may have done exceptional work while breaking the rules, but I think I better stick to them. So my first reason is this: I have no faith in GS's populace to do free-form well. I fear that 99% of the folks who are breaking the rules never understood why those rules were there in the first place, which is a horrible way to go about free-form anything.

Second reason (AKA, why *are* the rules there in the first place?): a world is nothing without predictability. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? A bit humdrum? But innovation is worthless without its feet firmly on a solid base. For something to have an impact on us, we have to be able to compare it to the predictable patterns already in our heads. If a thing is simply too far removed from the predictable, it's floating out in a disconnected nowhere land. Its impact is lost. (It may even invoke the "Hello! Random!" voice in my head.)

We can see this in poetry, in the movies, in paintings. Dali's work inspires such a great reaction because it's feeding off how we know things are supposed to look. We see the distorted people and clock faces in there. If his paintings were just random dripping shapes with little relation to anything, I doubt we'd know who he was.

When *I* see (Haggaba wiggles her ears three times and turns into a bat), I'm afraid the only impact it has on me is to provoke a "What the heck? Ha! Random!" response. Nothing in GS has ever given me the idea that a person could turn into a bat, via ear-wiggling or any other method. It's as if a hot pink cartoon rabbit had been painted sitting on the Mona Lisa's head. All right, so it's fresh, maybe it's creative... but is it any good?

I will throw humility to the wind and answer that. Not only is it bad art, but it's jarring and it takes away from the rest of the painting. (It's like when I accidentally recorded 10 seconds of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles into the middle of my copy of Willow.) So from where I'm sitting... for an ACT or SMILE command to be good roleplaying in GS, it has to fit in somehow with what our brain has come to logically expect from the lands.

Obviously the tricky part is that this differs from person to person; but I should hope we can all follow the same basic guidelines when considering out-of-the-ordinary actions. If it isn't a thing that generally happens to other people in the lands, steer clear.

(Juspera accepts a message from a fidgety runner, who dashes off.) - Fine in my book, though I hear some GMs have a problem...

(Juspera unleashes an unearthly groan as her eyes flash red!) - Huh?

(Juspera vanishes in a puff of smoke and swirling fleas!) - Yeah, right.

I feel my spiel petering out. I am hesitant to tell other people how to roleplay, but I might plead that the next time we consider having our characters turn into a great horned owl, we think of the placid Mona Lisa with a tiny Babs Bunny taking tea on her forehead.

August 20th

There was a bit of a hullabaloo on the boards about disruptions of service, Simutronics's culpability or lack of, and general player discontent. I can't seem to bring myself to read an entire thread about poor customer service these days. The boards have become saturated with it.

I do think it's appropriate to post on the boards (and write to feedback) when we think we're receiving poor customer service. But to those who are absolutely outraged, I must also suggest account cancellation or downgrading. That thing everyone threatens to do but never seems to follow through on. My suggestion may be made in futility, but I offer it in complete seriousness.

It's not healthy to continually be subject to things you believe are an outrage. I know we love our characters, and we like a lot about GS, but if we believe it's a poor value or it treats like a helplessly addicted sack o' money to be taken from, let us please consider cancelling our accounts one more time. Or downgrading from premium to basic, or consolidating into a single account if we have more than one. Maybe this is all a bit obvious and I don't need to be talking about it; but I see so many posts from players I believe would be better off separated from Simu. And maybe GS would be better off if Simu felt more of a threat of customer loss.

I am basically satisfied with what I get for my money, but I know a lot of you aren't. Want to take a stand? If you cancel, you can always come back; it's not the end of the world (especially if your character has been archived). Downgrading your account to a basic affair--along with a letter to feedback or a post stating why you did so--isn't a bad idea either. I advise that all letters and posts be civil. I wouldn't take a furious incoherent flame very seriously, and I doubt the staff at Simu would either; an intelligent, rational explanation of why a company's services aren't worth paying for will make much more of an impact.

Posting, writing letters and altering your account status aren't the only options. I would guess that Simu gets most of its new customers through word of mouth. The more honest customer dissatisfaction you can get onto the grapevine (through friends, non-GS boards or even your own website), the more potential new accounts you may be able to nip in the bud. No company wants a negative buzz about them circulating on the net. You can also support Simu's competitors without cancelling your GemStone account. The bigger those competitors get, the more need Simu will feel to make its own services more appealing.

Finally: if Simutronics does something you like, praise them and spread the word... that's the "carrot" part of the carrot and the stick, and it doubles their incentive to make the right moves. Or make the decision to simply take your money somewhere else. That's being a conscientious consumer.

August 27th

All the convention and election hubbub finally prompted me to take a good look at the candidates' platforms and get a better idea of who I'd be voting for. If, like me, you had a hard time finding out from press coverage exactly what the candidates stood for, you should check out this site (be aware that you may match up better with a third-party candidate than with Gore or Bush, but the site may not show such as it possesses only incomplete data from third-partiers). First, though, you have to figure out what you stand for... and that brings us to our topic for today.

Two years of posting on the GS boards have finally wreaked irrevocable damage on my brain. It was bound to happen eventually. When I'm answering polls about which election issues are most important to me, I can't but hear my own posts echoing in my head... saying things like, "I want these changes for the good of the game" and asking, "Are you suggesting this for the benefit of your own character, or because it would make the game a better place?" And, of course, I feel like a hypocrite when I immediately check off health care as my number one election issue. It's not an urge to be taken lightly; I need good health care more than I need smaller classroom sizes, tax cuts or an apache helicopter. And millions of other Americans also need better health care... but if I say that's what makes it an important issue to me, I'm not being honest. It's my own needs that are determining which bills I want congress to pass.

Is that so bad? I don't know. My needs are important, even if I'm only one person. But the more I post all high and mighty on the GS boards about pushing for changes that benefit everyone, the harder I have to look at which election issues should be most important to me. Yes, there is a big difference between a game and real life... but if we're to take the moral high ground here (and it's too late not to)... isn't it even more essential to think of the common good in real life than in a computer game? It is more essential, but it's also exponentially harder. If I see that tax cuts would make the country a better place than a more socialized health care system would, should I vote republican, even though I need the health care more?

The answer is both obvious and elusive. Of course I should ditch selfishness and align myself with the common good. But how to overcome the obstacles of loyalty, stubbornness, selfishness, and honest-to-goodness personal need?

This week's essay, if it were about heavy election issues, might be a bit trite and offensive coming from someone as young and inexperienced as myself. So I shall make my point this: again, I see the mirror between a multiplayer game and real life. And I have discovered that plunging up to my elbows in the politics of making the community of GS work truly has prepared me to deal better with the politics of real life. GemStone is a game, but it's foolish to not take seriously its role as a microcosm of society. It has its conservatives and liberals, movers and shakers and people who just want to have fun. Social scientists don't study online communities for nothing. They are worlds in miniature.

By the way, I encourage all my young peers to educate yourselves on the issues and vote. (I am of the opinion that it's best not to vote if you're not confident you know the candidate's platforms.) So many people my age feel distanced from the political monster, convinced it cares nothing and can do nothing for them... but few see how their refusal to vote is the reason politics often ignore youth. We have to turn it around. "I don't vote because I can't make a difference" is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If nothing else, take to heart a sentiment from the GS boards: at least get involved so you'll have the right to complain when things don't turn out the way you want.

Between my 10-day vacation and a long period on either side of it where I didn't feel like doing much work, this site has gone without update for more than a month. I apologize.

Let's see if we can tie this statement into the Olympics, shall we? While reading Salon the other day, I followed a link to a column by Tom Long at Detroit News Online. An excerpt:

* Chuck a sickie: That's when you take a sick day from work even though you're perfectly healthy. Many may chuck a sickie to stay home and watch the Olympics.
* Pommy shower: This is when you just use deodorant instead of taking a shower. Let's hope that doesn't catch on.
* Mozzie: That would be a mosquito.
* Hottie: Certainly not what it means here. In Australia, this is a hot water bottle.
* Grundies: That would be underwear, the sound of which, combined with the Pommy shower, gives some idea of Australian hygiene.
* Brekkie: Breakfast.
* Brickie: A bricklayer (this could cause some confusion).
* Tall poppies: Successful people.
* Tall poppie syndrome: The practice of hating successful people (which must be practiced a lot if it's got a name).

Australian slang, obviously. It made me think of GemStone... and not just in our players' tendency to tear down successful roleplayers, though there's enough material there for several more statements of the week. Rather, it brought to mind the "-ies" issue.

I have always held that adding "-ie" to the end of a word is not necessarily an indication of infantilism. In my arguments I've pointed to the frequency of the practice in sports and the military ("goalie," "gunny") and dared my readers to call a hockey player or infantryman cutesy. Now I have new fodder for my argument: Australians.

Now, what exactly makes "goalie" an acceptable abbreviation but "boxie" inacceptably saccharine preciousness? Are we reacting solely to the speaker? An "-ie" abbreviation is okay--if it was created by a big, sweaty guy in the heat of battle?

I find a lot of typical Elanthian cuteness cloying, but let's see if we can ignore the worst of it and still respect our fine real-world tradition of familiarizing words for our teammates, our enemies, and the trappings of everyday life. The Australians shall fight off their mozzies, I shall slay my stonies, and we'll all let the cutesy folks do their thing in peace.

October 15th

One of the submissions I received to the website this past week was more bold OOC from the net. What got me this time, however, was the response: several "good citizens" chiming in with "What's a computer?"

It's hard to be too contemptuous of this; it is, after all, an attempt to be in character. And I used to do it too. But now I wish I could tell folks that the better part of remaining in character is responding to things as your character would. In our haste to denounce OOC we forget that some of these words were around long before our time. A chorus of "What's a computer?" only serves to magnify the ookness of the situation. Here I present a premodern glossary of computer terms:

computer - One who adds up tables of figures
keyboard - Part of a musical instrument that contains keys
keys - Tools for opening locks; parts of musical instruments (and compositions)
monitor - To watch; one who watches
mouse - A small animal
screen - Paper or thin fabric used for privacy or art
type - Category or kind; letters used in a printing press

It's not just computer terms that inspire folks to forget that words existed before they acquired their present definitions. GS-related terms that we use outside the game also receive the same kind of treatment. Pity the poor fellow who recently announced on the net that he was "selling his soul" and received half a dozen thoughts about being OOC. (Soul commerce OOC? Someone must alert the Poohbah straight away.) At least the majority of the thoughts were private, but quite a few of the thinkers seemed unable to conceive that there was a very valid IC meaning to the term.

I can't possibly list here all the words we now use for modern things that were around long before those things were invented. Our characters would sound particularly stupid asking "What's a mouse?" in medieval times.

In public, recall that your character may define the questionable words differently from you. In private, as our soul-selling saga illustrates, don't jump to conclusions. I'd like to be able to say things like "It all depends on your character" without setting people off left and right.

October 29th

For our statement of the week this week I present a somewhat recent post from the boards:

Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Conflict! (2)
Message Casting Kindness? (6246)
By OBSESSION@PLAY.NET (Danay)
On Oct 12, 2000 at 03:24

This is from the other thread, but it's something I have thought about for quite a bit and thought the above [not included] might be a good way to bring it up as its own topic. And in my attempt to always be clear in that I do not mean my comments personally in any way, my disclaimer is that the above is only what I am using for the starting point. My comments are in no way aimed negatively at either person who posted above.

The topic is about casting "nice" spells on people without asking. I have seen it come up again and again, and it is often a source of conflict. In many cases, the caster just thinks they are being nice or helpful, and the recipient feels....hmm...I can't think of a word that isn't too strong for what I mean. They don't really feel harmed or abused, but it's still a sense of invasion that they had something cast on them. They also often feel that they can't complain about it because the other person did have good intentions.

The haste example above is only one of tons of examples. Other examples include defensive spells, unstun after raising, locklore, taking wounds, raising the dead, etc. etc. I would say that in most cases, people cast without thinking. They have a spell that they feel can help the other person and because they are nice, they cast it. It's entirely understandable that people do this.

The conflict comes in where there casting takes choice away from the castee. Many people feel about their characters the same way they do about their own person RL. They do not want other people imposing things on them against their will or without asking. Even if those things are well intentioned or beneficial. Freedom of choice is highly prized. Being able to feel that your body is your own is a rather basic concept. In RL we don't have people who can walk around casting at us, but in the game we do. In the game those same personal space boundaries are important and need to be honored in order to avoid conflict. You can insist all day long that hugging is a friendly thing to do, but if I DON'T LIKE being hugged, it is NOT friendly.

In some cases casting spells unasked, can actually harm the recipient in some way. On Teras I need the three guards to have the "right" DS to hunt pyros. Someone coming along and being nice by casting wizard shield on me totally messes that up and it means I either have to hunt something else that I don't want to, wait for the spell to drop, or get totally dispelled and start all over. A person who knows the locklore spell but doesn't have any training in lockpicking who casts on a picker not only is NOT enchancing their picking ability, they just cost the picker half the experience for that box. A cleric who sees someone's bless wear off in battle and kindly casts bless at them can blow up that person's weapon making it gone forever if they missed the fact the person had been cursed a few minutes ago.

So I guess my point of these ramblings is that people often need to step back a bit and examine what they are doing and why. Are you casting to be nice, to annoy or to harm? If you are casting to be nice, asking first is always your best and safest bet. The other two are rather self explanatory. Any time you impose yourself on another without knowing the other person's wishes, your best intentions can easily be seen as an invasion of space at the least or an act of assault at the worst. Of course, many times the person receives it in the manner intended. But is it worth taking that chance without asking? And what about all the people who dislike what you do, but just grit their teeth and never say anything because they are nice people too?

Robin

November 5th

This week, due to my having nothing good to talk about, we're pretending that the following inanities compose a statement of some kind:

Category Towns and Neighborhoods (13)
Topic River's Rest (2)
Message Re: 785 AS invasion? Come on... (3828)
By SAP060170@PLAY.NET (Lost In The Supermarket)
On Nov 3, 2000 at 11:59

How did Fluffy survive the invasion?

I hate to have to disclose this terrible secret, but....

There's something you need to understand about Fluffy.

She is NOT REALLY A RABBIT!

See.. there is a really, really, REALLY evil creature, one that none of us has ever seen. All the invasion critters are in thrall to this one gigantic super-evil bad thingie. The thing is really horrible, but the most horrible thing about it, is... IT HAS NO EYES!

Well, it has eyes, but not eyes like you think. Instead of eyes, it's eye sockets are occupied by...

PARASITIC FLOPPY-EARED RABBITS!

The big evil thing casts a spell, and sticks a finger in behind one of the floppy-eared rabbit-eyes, and *pop* there it goes, hopping free, as if it were an independent, autonomous, living creature. BUT NO!

NO!

It's simply the EYE of this gigantic horrible being, roving around, serving its master as a sort of roving remote biovideonic bunnycam! FLUFFY IS REALLY A GIANT DISEMBODIED EYE!

How else could fluffy survive? How else could those Ghosts and Sardonic Ghouls and Sarcastic Spirits and Scornful Zombies and Disenchanted Former Customers find everyone and kill them SO EASILY??

Fluffy, I tell you. F - L - U - F - F - Y

Trust not the thing that hops and will not die.

~ She who knows things, and never tries to pet "it"

You exclaim, "Rabbit!"

Jaxia exclaims, "Not the rabbit!"

You seize an opening and bring the blunt end of your misercord down on a floppy-eared rabbit's knee!
MS: +154 - MD: +100 + MAvA: -1 + d100: +50 == +103
Success!
The floppy-eared rabbit crashes to the ground, clutching its knee!
Roundtime: 5 sec.

The floppy-eared rabbit scrambles to its feet and scratches furiously behind one ear.

A tattered pixie doll screams, "Witch!"

November 12th

This week on the boards I posted perplexed musings on why in the world players would RP when they're all alone (and why GMs would give RPAs for it). The responses shed more light on my own motivations to RP than on anyone else's.

Everyone replied that they RPed alone because it was fun, or to stay immersed, in the mood. One would think I'd have anticipated this, as I'm sure I've aired a "do what you like, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" philosophy often. I think this time, however, I had my go-for-the-goal blinders on. And maybe I wasn't even shooting for the usual goal.

The "goal" of my roleplaying (to be clinical with a warm art) is to give others a good time. That sounds more holy than I mean it to; it's not that others' enjoyment satisfies my morality, it's more that I get an ego boost from thinking I'm something like a barrel of fun. So I see no need to roleplay without an audience, as such an activity would defy the purpose of roleplaying.

I should have recalled that the ultimate purpose of roleplaying... maybe of everything... is enjoyment, and that pleasing an audience happened to be my method. Others blaze alternate trails to fun. And since I wholeheartedly endorse doing those things you enjoy which hurt no one, I must now state that if you get a kick out of chatting up stone giants, please continue doing so, and with my (unecessary) blessing.

Somewhere along the way I must have forgotten my 1,001 quirks, about half of which probably revolve on doing something that has no tangible purpose but makes me smile.

November 19th

What to talk about this week? I can't recall any "issues" (things people have been complaining about on the boards) that would make for a particularly good statement. There is, of course, a big event going on, and I assume there will be invasions further down the road. So in light of that, I will recap one of my invasion pet peeves now and get it out of the way:

I hate it when people whine about someone else's sancting during an invasion.

Out of all the invasion faux pases, I suppose I hate this one because the avarice inherent in the whine is so often veiled under a greasy layer of "logic" that usually says something like "Now everyone's going to die! Thanks a lot!" Some folks, I think, have heard this so much they genuinely believe everyone will die if someone sancts in an invasion; but whatever the motivation, I hope no one ever accepts this un-logic, and I'll tell you why.

Even if the critters can still attack, that excuse for sancter-abuse doesn't fly. It's inconsistent with behavior. If a person is that concerned about other people's lives, what were they thinking when I was stunned for 15 rounds, or begging for LK? "If I can only kill these 35 trolls, Juspera will be saved"? Please. Unless they're a 98-pound weakling without spell 108, with no white flasks or oak wands, who can somehow manage to kill things but can't afford to put their shield away, give me a break.

And to those who simply whine about not being able to kill any more, I've always wanted to say: "So you can't kill in this room anymore... move to another room already. You don't hear the dead complaining that you spoiled everything when you neglected to stop long enough to unstun them; don't complain that the sancter is spoiling everything because now you have to type 'east' to keep killing." (Alternatively: "You can't kill anymore? Tough, I can't breathe anymore.") (Alternatively: "Oh, poor baby.")

The fact of the matter is, even if critters can break sancts, 99% of the time, people in the room are in the same or less danger than before it was cast. I can count on no hands the number of times I've seen that the only way to save someone was to kill the 15 Mega Scary Lords in the room RIGHT NOW. Accept no excuses. Sanct when there are multiple stunned or dead in the room that no can, or will, put a shield away to help.

Even if others might die or decay if the critters turn out to be sanct-breakers... the folks in danger now WILL die or decay if no one helps them. Those who really care about other adventurers' lives will do something besides racking up experience and treasure. Those who don't, I postulate, will act like they do in order to justify spouting bile at considerate sancters who take away their ability to zombily kill things left and right.

November 26th

For the most part this week has been cheery. Though I have seen tempers flaring over event participation and the Jugg invasion, I and a lot of other people are happy. Especially if we have gotten to kill a banaltra.

But there was a funny thing on the RR boards. People were upset about seeing their names on the local blackboard, saying they'd rather no one be mentioned at all if the blackboard wasn't going to list everyone who'd played a part in finding an item. And the RR guru said, very well: no more names will be mentioned on the River's Rest blackboard. But he or someone else brought up the point that most folks--unlike those who made the complaints--weren't used to being well-known in town, and were dying for their minutes of fame.

I hope names keep being posted on the blackboard, myself. Of course it's a shame when the list of names is inaccurate, but that's nothing compared to the joy a lot of players would feel to see their name actually posted in town. And that tips the balance in favor of fame, however imperfect.

December 10th

This past week in the "Something Wicked" folder there was a (rather off-topic) little tiff about the killing of the NPC Polly. Someone had posted something about having killed Polly and intending to kill her again, and the discussion degenerated into a debate about what roleplaying is or isn't. For the (nearly two) people who care, this week I present my views on the subject.

First, I like to refrain from making judgements about the roleplaying skill of someone who merely posted that they killed an NPC. I wasn't there, I didn't see it, and so any condemnations of "snert!" on my part would have to assume that killing an NPC is always bad, which I disagree with. (It would also assume I even like the word "snert," but that's another matter.)

Anyone who has spent the recommended amount of time scrutinizing my website and posts has probably seen that I tend to look down on your typical reason for killing an NPC. The typical reason--usually some variation of "I had to to stay in character"--has been suitably railed against on other parts of this site. Suffice it to say that I find most NPC-killers' reasons insufficient cause for terminating other players' fun.

But I see many NPC killings as appropriate. Let's face it: storylines should have an end, and in some cases that end should be the death of the main character. I simply like to see the story played out before that end is reached. How do you know when the story's been played out? Generally it's when the NPC seems to have no more information to divulge, tricks to perform, wild goose chases to lead, et cetera. I mean, one can only chat up a troll king so much. Go ahead and take a swing... after it seems to have run out of material regarding its poor lost puppy.

So you created a character with such a pathological hatred for trolls he has to kill them all on sight. (We won't talk now about the appropriateness of creating a character who HAS to kill in the first place.) I guarantee: no matter how true to character you're being, it's a cinch you'll be remembered as a poor roleplayer if you charge in and slay the troll king NPC as soon as you see it. Instead, try these tactics:

1. Avoid the NPC. So, for better or worse, you created a character who would have to kill it on sight. To escape a permanent brand of "snert," simply stay away from that NPC. If you can't manage that...

2. Show your fury with ACT, not ATTACK. Make it look like your character is trying his damndest to kill the NPC. (Mikoron seethes with hatred and tries to charge the troll king, but the crowd wrestles him back!) (Juliara takes a massive swing at the troll king with her hatchet, but is so blinded by rage she ends up missing by a hair!) Toothless? Depends. Roleplaying? Absolutely. And likely to be commended, too.

3. Enlist the help of other players. Conspire in whispers. Have a friend hold you back with the ACT command, or web you to keep you from attacking, or sanct. You save face while everyone else gets to enjoy the NPC.

4. Rationalize. You run your character, not the other way around; you decide how and why he acts. And why, despite his troll-hatred, he's not attacking now. Tell the troll king you're simply waiting until he's not expecting it. Say you want to make sure you'll enjoy it. Or simply change your character and his motivations. You're in charge, after all. "By Koar," you say, "I hate you more than anything in this world, but for once I am strong enough to keep my bloodlust from controlling me!"

December 17th

We're going to do this the cheap and easy way this week. The hot topic on the boards of late has been "sleeping" in public (and whether it was appropriate to drag someone into an area where they'd get killed to "teach them a lesson"). And even though everyone was basically on the same side of the argument--that going afk in public isn't good--they managed to find all kinds of ways to take offense at each other. Here's Lylia's player with a take similar to my own...

Someone wrote:

<<How does it hurt you to see someone sitting there not moving? Why are you incapable of ignoring that person? Why is it selfish for someone to sit quietly somewhere? Why isn't it selfish of you (not you personally, but you in the plural sense) to expect someone to conform to your wishes?>>

I do agree with the sentiment that one person's inaction is not an inherently selfish or wrong act, nor does it harm me personally. If everyone in an area is clearly unresponsive and AFK, fine, I'll read whatever novel is close to hand as I sit here, or perhaps polish my toenails (I favor Raven Red, personally).

My original point---which, I note, has not been answered cogently yet---is that though the unresponsiveness of one person matters little, a game in which unresponsiveness becomes the standard becomes a substandard roleplaying game. If I toss one paper cup out of my car window, it doesn't matter much, but if everyone does it at the same intersection, it becomes an eyesore.

I've yet to see anyone defend the practice of being chronically AFK; I've yet to see anyone say that it's actively good for the game or at least not detrimental to it. Plenty of people mention extenuating circumstances, and I agree wholeheartedly with them---common sense and decency dictates that real life issues come first, and anyone who'd tell their kids to wait for a snack until Mommy or Daddy is "fried" is behaving in an appalling fashion toward their family. But such arguments only prove the point that such cases should be an exception to the rule; that tacitly implies that such a rule ought to be in effect in the first place. That argument is therefore null and void.

The argument that those who expect others to roleplay with them constantly are "elitist" also doesn't hold water; it's an argument against a claim that no one who dislikes chronic AFK-ness has made. No one's ever said you need to be interacting constantly with everyone who wanders by, simply that if you don't want the *possibility* of interaction, you should make yourself unseen. "If you don't want to run the risk of interacting with others, you should be out of others' view" is no less logical than the statement, "If you don't want to run the slightest risk of getting killed by creatures, you should be where creatures aren't." Cross this one off the list of logical arguments, too.

Then we have those who defend the practice of going AFK chronically and visibly by saying that it's reasonable to expect meditating people to be completely unresponsive to any stimuli. This doesn't wash, either; again, it's a misleading argument against a point that no one has tried to make. Meditation, like it or not, *is* interrupted by almost any action that the meditator makes or that observers perform on the meditator. There's a big difference between meditating and being AFK; meditation isn't catatonia. Meditating characters can be pulled out of their trance, while "pilotless" characters cannot be disturbed from their state by anything except the return of that character's player. No one, as far as I have read, argues with the practice of clerics meditating in busy places as long as their players remain attentive to what goes on around them.

I'm still waiting for a cogent, consistent, and logical argument for why anyone needs to be an unresponsive lump in public on a regular basis. I'm not inflexible; as soon as someone can tell me why it's good for Gemstone to be filled with people who are AFK more than they're tuned in to what's going on in the game, I'll change my views.

-----Lauren, Lylia's player

P.S.---I haven't bothered responding to the people who'd commit policy violations like dragging AFK characters to their doom; it's completely irrational to think that a minor and indirect detriment to the game as a whole warrants directed, policy-violating wrongdoing.

December 31st

Here I'm going to be lazy again and reprint one of my posts from this week, in regard to thieves:

I don't cotton much to folks who act nasty then say, "Lighten up, I'm only RPing." If you're pissing other players off in the game left and right, there are a great many things you'll be remembered as, but "good roleplayer" is not one of them.

It's just too easy to harass other players with the current stealing mechanics, and I'm not sure the GMs want to deal with constant reports of "Soandso just stole all my silvers and is in hiding insulting me!" (if you do, say something).

Being cleaned out by far older characters is intensely frustrating for players, most of whom come here to relax and have a good time, not have an hour's worth of work stripped from them in two minutes. I hate to see anyone as pissed off and frustrated as these players who feel powerless against older bullies, and Simu should too.

I don't want to lose stealing. I do want it changed. And the thieves' rationales are driving me batty. You make a choice to clean someone out when you know it's pissing off another human being behind a monitor, own up to it. Don't put the blame on the marks for not closing their containers, training in pickpocketing or not enjoying the "RP."

Now I offer up these suggestions, the implementation of any of which would please me greatly:

1. The AVOID verb, as previously detailed
2. A WATCH verb that would make it drastically harder for one thief to steal from you (possibly lowering your resistance to others)
3. A change to make stealing without both hands free much more difficult
4. A real roundtime to stealing
5. "Lowered defenses" as the thief concentrates on stealing that make them defend about as well as a webbed kobold
6. An inability to steal from the same mark more than once a minute
7. A drastically improved ACCUSE system
8. Having one's chances of being caught by a mark increase greatly with each handful one takes from that person
9. The inability to take more than X silvers off one mark
10. Redoubled effort to nab players who harass others with pickpocketing

I favor those options that don't inhibit what I see as valid uses of theft: roleplayed scenes both parties enjoy, joking between friends, earning some cash from sleepers, stealing from merchants, and getting back at snerts.

Lest someone say it, I'm not trying to "Disneyfy" the game. Right now thieves can steal with impunity, from almost anyone they want in an unrealistic manner with little to no danger or consequences. What do you call that?

| River's Rest | The House of the Argent Aspis |

| Links | Guestbook | Home |