Mudsex Hate Cycle Thread

[Malken]

Armageddon is full of mentally fucked up players. You can never tell what event will trigger a massive meltdown from a player.

That's the beauty of this game!

[Alesan]

The only real problem I have with vbabies in Armageddon is when you can see PCs going everywhere with them, including places you really shouldn't take babies because they could get hurt or worse. But because there's no vNPC threat aside from what you make yourself, anything like that just gets handwaved or ignored entirely.

I'd at least be expecting odd looks from anyone nearby for bringing a possibly screaming baby with me into crowded, rowdy taverns, and maybe a few treating me like an idiot for doing it.


When did the mudsex hate cycle thread shift into pregnancy/baby hate? Should it be added to the cycle?

[Is Friday]

I know this may come as a surprise to some of you internet tuff guys, but proving that you're a bad motherfucker by killing someone's virtual kid is one of those "juice not worth the squeeze" situations. Same with rape plots.

[TheWanderer]

It's not even strictly about killing the children of PCs (but I'm sure that would get a point across). If you're unwilling to let the good -and- bad affect the child, such as a plot to kidnap said child and sell it into slavery, what is that child but pointless fluff? It's like it doesn't even exist, too far removed from the realm of reality due to OOC trepidation.

"You could kill the PC and just take the baby." You -could- do that and leave yourself with a virtual baby that only advances things on the virtual side (like toss it off a cliff or something - I don't have one of these magical nannies willing to devote thirteen years), or you could take the baby and make it a plot device. Something worth fighting for. You could be forced to serve someone based on the leverage they have over your children. Real plots.

Or you can turn it into something useless and the equivalent of a bird you plant on your shoulder while you idle in the Gaj.

I know this may come as a surprise to some of you internet tuff guys.

fite me. you won't

[RogueGunslinger]

I know this may come as a surprise to some of you internet tuff guys, but proving that you're a bad motherfucker by killing someone's virtual kid is one of those "juice not worth the squeeze" situations. Same with rape plots.

I'd gladlyeasily kill peoples in-game children if I thought it could start a good revenge plot and was done in a realistic fashion(with staff help, basically). I really don't think it's comparable to rape plots.


edit: Maybe gladly is the wrong word. Anyways it's got nothing about being internet tough.

[Is Friday]

Yep, pointless fluff to some (me included?) But some players enjoy the details they solo RP or force onto others when they finally get them into the apartment for that babby RP.

The game needs to have some level of indulgence for this kind of homemaker RP. Otherwise you are driving players away from the game that we as a community would rather keep. For the same reason we have consent rules. We need players. If you drove away these demographics you'd literally just have a bunch of Desertmans Gage Gritshawing at each other.

You shouldn't be allowed to run rampant living out your power fantasy at the expense of literally everyone, because "being an asshole is good RP". For the same reason there's a lot of scrutiny on karma PCs and leadership for PK.

It's supposed to be a happy medium between role-playing a harsh environment and providing fun to players. The goal is not to upset people IRL.

[RogueGunslinger]

 I'm all for making fun for others, but turning every rotten thing in-game into an expression of some power fantasy, or violence wank or whatever instead of a part of roleplay or storytelling is what I have a problem with.

[BadSkeelz]

IF just mad cause that virtual kid I would have thrown into a fire would have been his PC.

[Is Friday]

If you would like to play a game where nothing is sacred then you can try HellMOO. They attract the best kind of players, I heard.

Edit: BadSkeelz your PC would have died a terrible death trying.

[RogueGunslinger]

If you would like to play a game where nothing is sacred then you can try HellMOO. They attract the best kind of players, I heard.

What amuses me about this post is you've probably played that shit hole of a mud and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

[Is Friday]

If you would like to play a game where nothing is sacred then you can try HellMOO. They attract the best kind of players, I heard.

What amuses me about this post is you've probably played that shit hole of a mud and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

I haven't, actually.

[RogueGunslinger]

Well fine, you got me there, but you did play Furcadia. 

[Is Friday]

It's not my fault that you won't roll deep with a Teamspeak crew into furry isometric games and try to troll people. We know how to have fun.

[BadSkeelz]

If you would like to play a game where nothing is sacred then you can try HellMOO. They attract the best kind of players, I heard.

Edit: BadSkeelz your PC would have died a terrible death trying.

That's what the "wait for Staff intervention then sweep in to gather up the spoils/kill babies" strategy is for.

As for what we're apparently actually arguing about (seriously we're arguing about babies now?) the only big check I have on emoting with other peoples' virtual kids is not wanting to power-emote. Virtual Kids are particularly tricky because there's no way to seize control of them through code: every action needs to be negotiated with the parent PC, whether explicitly ("OOC: can I hold your babby?") or implicitly (emote offers the babby to ~babby.daddy). And there's always the risk that someone might do the "wrong" thing and upset one party or another. Maybe walking that tightrope is difficult for some people but I've never had a problem (though I've never tried to actually kill anyone's virtual kid in game yet, either) and just accept it as part of the games' unwritten or loosely written rules.  Best thing I've found is to present possible actions and allow other people to choose how to respond, then go with that.

For what it's worth, I've seen a lot of great Virtual Kid or Sibling RP over the years by others. Far far more than bad or hysterical or whatever hypothetical it is we're getting worked up over.

[TheWanderer]

i lost track. equating morally reprehensible acts to a nerd on a power trip is silly as shit, though.

[manonfire]

[Fujikoma]

There's literally no reason to kill that baby right there. If it's alive, it keeps fresh for being tossed in the stewpot later.

[Is Friday]

i lost track. equating morally reprehensible acts to a nerd on a power trip is silly as shit, though.

I dunno. Some of us like to play the game with others, though, not just wank off to how awesome our own PCs are.

[RogueGunslinger]

i lost track. equating morally reprehensible acts to a nerd on a power trip is silly as shit, though.

I dunno. Some of us like to play the game with others, though, not just wank off to how awesome our own PCs are.

What does killing a vnpc have to do with trying to be awesome or self-masturbatory? Surely that would be better done by killing a PC or even NPC?

[TheWanderer]

i lost track. equating morally reprehensible acts to a nerd on a power trip is silly as shit, though.

I dunno. Some of us like to play the game with others, though, not just wank off to how awesome our own PCs are.

are you under the impression that performing nefarious acts means your character masturbates to himself and doesn't play with other people? wat

edit: oh, excuse me. on my phone. you meant the player masturbates to himself. I'd like to set the record straight and say me doing that has nothing to do with my characters.

[Fujikoma]

I've been wondering if IsFriday is subtly trolling me by arguing for the same notion I think I'm arguing for... like, haha, guys, he still doesn't get I'm making fun of him. Regardless, I agree with a number of his posts on the subject of vbabies, and I think I recalling him post that he really doesn't like them anyway. In a toilet like Hellmoo, not only is it appropriate to the setting to throw babies into the gaping maw of sewer alligators, as there's an impregnation ban, there's also no "IC", it's not an RPI, the investment simply isn't there. In an RPI, it's different, people get much more in tune with their characters and actions, as, how could you not with such strict rules regarding setting and what your character knows, along with harsh consequences for actions. To expect there to be absolutely no bleed-through strikes me as absurd, and to learn to immerse oneself in a character and their emotions so totally means roasting live babies, yes, can have a significant impact on some, one possibly best left unexplored in some situations.

Because as was said, I, too, enjoy playing with people. I'd like there to be more people to play with, not fewer. Telling a particular type of person, "I think this other mud would be better for you because you react in a rather human manner to harmful stimulus." would really leave us missing some pieces in what could be a rather interesting tale. Not everyone is the same type of gamer, it takes all types to build a community. Not everyone has the same thickness of skin.

[Malken]

isFriday is now a dad, so babies and vbabies are now sacred little beings to him and not the annoying shitheads jr the rest of us see them as they are.

BTW ALL UR BABIES ARE UGLY AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE PICS OF THEM

[Is Friday]

I'm just saying you have to come to a middle ground for the game's sake. If people don't want to RP being tortured, they can opt out (and sometimes be killed.) People can opt out of sexual RP. Armageddon on a meta level is more cooperative (for interaction's sake) than competitive. Clarification: that is not to imply that PCs must or should cooperate. I'm only referring to scene building and RP, not individual actions.

[whitt]

As for what we're apparently actually arguing about (seriously we're arguing about babies now?) the only big check I have on emoting with other peoples' virtual kids is not wanting to power-emote. Virtual Kids are particularly tricky because there's no way to seize control of them through code: every action needs to be negotiated with the parent PC, whether explicitly ("OOC: can I hold your babby?") or implicitly (emote offers the babby to ~babby.daddy). And there's always the risk that someone might do the "wrong" thing and upset one party or another. Maybe walking that tightrope is difficult for some people but I've never had a problem (though I've never tried to actually kill anyone's virtual kid in game yet, either) and just accept it as part of the games' unwritten or loosely written rules.  Best thing I've found is to present possible actions and allow other people to choose how to respond, then go with that.

For what it's worth, I've seen a lot of great Virtual Kid or Sibling RP over the years by others. Far far more than bad or hysterical or whatever hypothetical it is we're getting worked up over.

Because this got skipped over by folks wanting to be offended.

emo makes a grab for %parent bundle of joy. 

Don't make assumptions about how that player is going to react.

[Armaddict]

If you would like to play a game where nothing is sacred then you can try HellMOO. They attract the best kind of players, I heard.

Edit: BadSkeelz your PC would have died a terrible death trying.

That's what the "wait for Staff intervention then sweep in to gather up the spoils/kill babies" strategy is for.

As for what we're apparently actually arguing about (seriously we're arguing about babies now?) the only big check I have on emoting with other peoples' virtual kids is not wanting to power-emote. Virtual Kids are particularly tricky because there's no way to seize control of them through code: every action needs to be negotiated with the parent PC, whether explicitly ("OOC: can I hold your babby?") or implicitly (emote offers the babby to ~babby.daddy). And there's always the risk that someone might do the "wrong" thing and upset one party or another. Maybe walking that tightrope is difficult for some people but I've never had a problem (though I've never tried to actually kill anyone's virtual kid in game yet, either) and just accept it as part of the games' unwritten or loosely written rules.  Best thing I've found is to present possible actions and allow other people to choose how to respond, then go with that.

For what it's worth, I've seen a lot of great Virtual Kid or Sibling RP over the years by others. Far far more than bad or hysterical or whatever hypothetical it is we're getting worked up over.

This thread is shit.  I don't know why I read it.  But I'm bored.

And I think this is probably the only post really worth reading, as far as your current topic.  I think it's something where baby objects were purposely taken out of the game because they didn't want role-play focused on children at all.  It was allowed for pregnancy to be in game, but it was a personal plot.  It is, simply, on that edge where any 'plots' involved aren't actually enjoyable for anyone, and it really is just someone wanting to do a 'harmful' thing.  If you just want to show the harshness of the game...there are plenty of child NPC's for you to kidnap and sell into slavery.  If you insist that it must happen to this PC's children to enforce the harshness, then your reasoning is messed up because you are obviously insisting on a specific target, which reinforces that it's not 'just for the fact that happens'.

People's virtual children are facilities of their own personal roleplay, not a target for vengeance plots or creation of vengeance plots (what?).  Otherwise we can all roleplay fucking your virtual mothers and becoming your IC step.daddies so we can tell your PC's what to do.  Or whatever.  i.e. Leave the control of virtual creations to the people who created them, because it is theirs and in no way interrupting or interacting with your side of things aside from...having to see it, sometimes?