Mudsex Hate Cycle Thread

[BadSkeelz]

That's a whole lot of crazy silly shit, Fujikoma. "Greater brain growth in the Renaissance," Lol wut?

If you don't want your virtual kids murdered, either don't have virtual kids, take steps to protect them, or don't make murdering them so appealing. And there are plenty of good reasons why killing them would be appealing.

Maybe you want to achieve complete victory over a person and all that that person has built in life, even after their death. Maybe you're just being pragmatic - nits make lice, kill 'em while they're young, etc. Maybe you just want to blow off some steam and the kid's an available target. If the parent's still alive, harming a loved one's an effective mean of intimidation or coercion. Getting a reaction from the parent would be the whole point. Someone's gone to ground but you got their family? Tell them to contact their kids mind right before you smash its head in. That'll draw the parent out. Maybe.

Sometimes selling the kid's a nice option, but not every character is going to think like that. For some characters, cruelty trumps economic pragmatism.

[Jingo]

I hire virtual bodyguards with virtual money to protect my virtual kids. This is going to get silly pretty damn quick.

Or I can just say no, sorry. You don't get to interact with my virtual family.

[RogueGunslinger]

I hire virtual bodyguards with virtual money to protect my virtual kids. This is going to get silly pretty damn quick.

Or I can just say no, sorry. You don't get to interact with my virtual family.

Or you can find some middle ground for the sake of cooperative roleplay?

[Fujikoma]

Hrrmmm, possibly either something I read (or misread) in a middle or high school textbook (known to be flawed), or something in one of those documentaries they showed us that I accepted without proof. Ah well, is good for me to figure these things out eventually, rather than continue to believe them without evidence. I can't find anything on the evolution of the human brain in recent history. I also don't recall them telling us in school that the Renaissance was caused by a horrible plague wiping out some huge portion of the population and causing them to flee to places like Italy... of course, I've also heard not to believe anything posted to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_the_Renaissance

While it's better to have researched something and not looked like a chump in the first place, being able to admit a mistake is crucial, apologies.

[Jingo]

I hire virtual bodyguards with virtual money to protect my virtual kids. This is going to get silly pretty damn quick.

Or I can just say no, sorry. You don't get to interact with my virtual family.

Or you can find some middle ground for the sake of cooperative roleplay?

I could. But the point is that I don't have to.

[BadSkeelz]

That's kind of like saying "I could RP out being dropped to 5 HP by grievous hits from a mek with no lasting ill effects, but I don't have to." You might not be breaking any rules but it's still poor form.

If you bring a virtual kid into the world and RP that kid being around your character and generally accessible, don't get OOCly mad if a raider threatens to shoot the virtual baby in your arms with a crossbow.

[Armaddict]

That's kind of like saying "I could RP out being dropped to 5 HP by grievous hits from a mek with no lasting ill effects, but I don't have to." You might not be breaking any rules but it's still poor form.

If you bring a virtual kid into the world and RP that kid being around your character and generally accessible, don't get OOCly mad if a raider threatens to shoot the virtual baby in your arms with a crossbow.

I don't think that's the issue that's being discussed, unless you enter and just 'emote shoots the baby with his crossbow'.  There, it's quite clearly a case where the 'owner' of the child is still able to tell how things are and determine/dictate how things are going.  That -is- cooperative roleplay.

My issue comes about when people roleplay a breakin, decide that they have kidnapped this baby, and say it happened because they roleplayed it.  In which case it can be countered with 'I had the baby, and slept in the Gaj', or 'Did you walk past the front, because I always play the people at the front desk knowing my kids very well and they'd be able to spot it and tell me who did it.'

i.e. The issue is not when both parties are present, but when someone decides to do the play on their own without the other party present.  Which requires staff time (to investigate if this has merit and is doable or not) or a pre-arranged deal.  Which...is what people have been saying.  So I don't think your example has merit unless we've been standing on opposite sides of a fence and shouting in opposite directions of each other.

[Synthesis]

That's kind of like saying "I could RP out being dropped to 5 HP by grievous hits from a mek with no lasting ill effects, but I don't have to." You might not be breaking any rules but it's still poor form.

If you bring a virtual kid into the world and RP that kid being around your character and generally accessible, don't get OOCly mad if a raider threatens to shoot the virtual baby in your arms with a crossbow.

I don't think anyone is going to complain about someone threatening to do something to your vnpc <whatever> while you're RP'ing that the vnpc is there with you, because then the two of you can hash it out.

The problem is when someone purports to have done something to your vnpc <whatever> while you aren't there to referee and say, "Hey, that's not how it would actually go down, because you're missing x/y/z bits of information."  And at this point, you have to start crying to the Staff, and they get annoyed, and everyone gets mad butt-hurt, because everyone knows what's in their heart is right.

[Fujikoma]

Keep in mind if you just ride up and threaten a PC's virtual family, their response might be a bit shocking, especially if they're an Elkrosian.

[musashi]

Some folks leave their virtual family in their apartments via the way they arrange objects in there though. I think that makes the situation less clean cut in terms of who is right to be playing around with other people's vfamily.

[Jingo]

That's kind of like saying "I could RP out being dropped to 5 HP by grievous hits from a mek with no lasting ill effects, but I don't have to." You might not be breaking any rules but it's still poor form.

If you bring a virtual kid into the world and RP that kid being around your character and generally accessible, don't get OOCly mad if a raider threatens to shoot the virtual baby in your arms with a crossbow.

I would get irritated oocly. The matter is that the second actor doesn't have any agency over the first actor's virtual family. Even if they are RP'd in the area. So if you threaten my vnpc biby, I can just disappear it to safety with virtual magick and an emote.

The tressy-tressed woman throws her babbie in a football toss out the tavern entrance and is received by her virtual brother who will then ferry behby to safety.

Is it tacky as fuck? Yeah.
Is it a power-emote? Possibly.
Do I still get to do it? Yeah.

Not to mention Is Friday's edgelord argument, which I am fairly sympathetic to.

[Delirium]

Some folks leave their virtual family in their apartments via the way they arrange objects in there though. I think that makes the situation less clean cut in terms of who is right to be playing around with other people's vfamily.

People doing that probably (and if they don't, should) expect that by doing so, they've opened that virtual family up to being effected by the non-virtual world.

That's the whole reason I've done that, in the past. Sadly, I never came back to find my virtual family murdered.

Slackers.

[Barzalene]

If someone targeted my virtual family I'd be so flattered!

[Majikal]

Totally murdered someone's vnpc nanny once. Busted into an apartment, did some creepy magick stuff, walked into a bedroom to find a crib ldesc'd with having a nanny lady tending to a kid inside. Murderized said nanny with magickal nastiness and arranged the ldesc to show a dead nanny and unharmed babeh.

See, gickers don't eat babehs!

Seeing the player react to the whole thing a day or so later on down the road was pretty damn awesome though. Worth. 10/10 would kill vnpc's again.

[Inks]

What Skeelz said. If you have a vnpc family they are fair game the same as your pc family/ friends.

Poor form if you globe of invulnerability them unless you have the magic ability to create an actual globe of invulnerability. Of course just saying I virtually killed your family is a power emote of the worst kind. You would need to work with imms in most cases.

[Jingo]

What Skeelz said. If you have a vnpc family they are fair game the same as your pc family/ friends.

Poor form if you globe of invulnerability them unless you have the magic ability to create an actual globe of invulnerability. Of course just saying I virtually killed your family is a power emote of the worst kind. You would need to work with imms in most cases.

Incorrect.

[Fujikoma]

Personally, I think it's part of the game and one should be flattered that someone thought to include your virtual family in a plotline. At the same time, I can understand people having emotional issues with that sort of thing so poor form or not, if someone globe of invulnerabilitys their text baby, I won't be filing a complaint. Personally, there's only a few circumstances under which I'd screw with someone's virtual family.

[Malken]

Totally murdered someone's vnpc nanny once. Busted into an apartment, did some creepy magick stuff, walked into a bedroom to find a crib ldesc'd with having a nanny lady tending to a kid inside. Murderized said nanny with magickal nastiness and arranged the ldesc to show a dead nanny and unharmed babeh.

What if I play Armageddon to try and take my mind off of being traumatized for life when my nanny was murdered in RL when I was but a wee child?

[BadSkeelz]

What if I play Armageddon to try and take my mind off of being traumatized for life when my nanny was murdered in RL when I was but a wee child?

Reevaluate your entertainment/therapy choices.

[Jingo]

What if I play Armageddon to try and take my mind off of being traumatized for life when my nanny was murdered in RL when I was but a wee child?

Reevaluate your entertainment/therapy choices.

The best answer is to replace your nanny with a body double and continue playing like it never happened.

[Malken]

What if I play Armageddon to try and take my mind off of being traumatized for life when my nanny was murdered in RL when I was but a wee child?

Reevaluate your entertainment/therapy choices.

I was kidding, gee.

I played Armageddon to fap it up ol' school-like with bored housewives and isFriday, duh.

[Fujikoma]

Or dress up in your dead nanny's bloody clothing and extract a terrible, terrible vengance.

[Is Friday]

What if I play Armageddon to try and take my mind off of being traumatized for life when my nanny was murdered in RL when I was but a wee child?

Reevaluate your entertainment/therapy choices.

I was kidding, gee.

I played Armageddon to fap it up ol' school-like with bored housewives and isFriday, duh.

That's a one way fap session, sir. But aren't they all?

[flurry]

To the would-be kidnappers and killers of VNPCs, I would ask who gets to decide if you succeed? There are few things of consequence in the game where you get to decide if your own character succeeds or not. Especially if there's any risk involved. For most things the code makes that call. Occasionally, for things like a slap across a PC's face, the intended victim's player makes that decision.

So that's one issue.

The other one I see is that VNPCs, being virtual, have an uncertain state most of the time. In other words, are they here or there? Awake or asleep? Alone or not? The exceptions to this are when the associated PC is "animating" them, or if the VNPC is part of an arrange description (which I personally don't care for).

It's just awkward if the attacker gets to decide all those things in their favor, and then decide that they succeed.

It also seems like the kind of plot that staff (very reasonably) wouldn't want to oversee, simply because it puts the burden on staff to make decisions about something virtual, possibly without any input from the person who imagined that VNPC in the first place.

I've had a PC or two with VNPC family, and I would have been totally okay with a plot affecting them, but less so if staff were just saying "Oh, by the way, here's what happened to your VNPC when you were logged out." And not at all if some other player just got to decide unilaterally about the success of their own PC against my VNPC.

[manipura]

To the would-be kidnappers and killers of VNPCs, I would ask who gets to decide if you succeed? There are few things of consequence in the game where you get to decide if your own character succeeds or not. Especially if there's any risk involved. For most things the code makes that call. Occasionally, for things like a slap across a PC's face, the intended victim's player makes that decision.

So that's one issue.

The other one I see is that VNPCs, being virtual, have an uncertain state most of the time. In other words, are they here or there? Awake or asleep? Alone or not? The exceptions to this are when the associated PC is "animating" them, or if the VNPC is part of an arrange description (which I personally don't care for).

It's just awkward if the attacker gets to decide all those things in their favor, and then decide that they succeed.

It also seems like the kind of plot that staff (very reasonably) wouldn't want to oversee, simply because it puts the burden on staff to make decisions about something virtual, possibly without any input from the person who imagined that VNPC in the first place.

I've had a PC or two with VNPC family, and I would have been totally okay with a plot affecting them, but less so if staff were just saying "Oh, by the way, here's what happened to your VNPC when you were logged out." And not at all if some other player just got to decide unilaterally about the success of their own PC against my VNPC.

Yep.  All this.

A couple pages back there was the example of the virtual wet nurse tending to the crib, and the wet nurse ending up dead.  That's not a great example to give, I don't think, as a way this was handled well. 
Where did this virtual wet nurse come from?  When my PC has a baby, can I just make up a whole pile of vNPCs then?  Who decides how many vNPCs I get to make up, just because I had a baby?  If I have twins, do I have the power to make up more than one vNPC?
Maybe the vNPC I 'hired'/made up is actually a highly-trained assassin who is sitting there with a peraine blade in her boot and a heramide blade up her sleeve, just waiting for the person so stupid as to break into my apartment.  Who decides that the PC in question codedly beats my super-assassin vNPC?  The PC in question?  How convenient.

And what what raider is actually using a crossbow?  More often than not, crossbows are stupid.


Anyway, I hate when you find someone's head and they're havin' the mudsex and instead of just ignoring you...they find your head back and then get distracted and then they send you their naughty thoughts and sensations.
It doesn't happen often.  Really...I think it's probably always happened with the same person (you know who you are...) 
And I don't actually hate it at all.  It makes me laugh every time.
I'm just trying to get the thread back on topic.