@Kanye-Qwest I can't tell on phone client who down voted it. I'm assuming it's the staff and their THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS EVERYTHING IS FINE, OUR CHARACTERS ARE HAVING FUN RUNNIN EVERYTHING clique.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Ghost Ok well that was less constructive.
@gasket said in The 100: The Mush:
He has been in all, or nearly all, of the major event scenes (these same scenes almost always containing the same four or five PCs)...
Completely accurate. I'm really enjoying this game and playing it constantly, to the exclusion of other games I have PCs on. This must be what Fallout 4 felt like. I'll assume the others feel similarly.
...and when he isn't cozied up with Cameron (another player who doesn't see the problem) is usually playing only with those other PCs.
Completely inaccurate. First, keep in mind not every log gets posted. But even so, look at the tags on those logs. Yes, Cameron certainly is in a large majority of them given their IC relationship but if you throw out the major events where everyone is there and just consider the smaller ones, the cast is fairly diverse. I'm happy to play with anyone.
edited to add: Despite this, whether my observations are true or accurate or not, it's a game I'm still trying to get traction on. I have issues with some things that are going on, obviously, but I also don't want to be solely on the dogpile side of things.
Grab me for a scene. I'm happy to RP and/or work out backstory.
While I was writing this post up, a friend of mine challenged me to think about how I define clique, and I have been using the term kind of loosely for "any group who plays primarily with each other." But, she pointed out that, that is probably not how it is being used in this particular thread.
So, for the purpose of this discussion:
Clique = exclusive group that does not include others in plot-based RP, keeping plot hooks to their "group" and generally trying to dominate the plot.
Playgroup = group of people who play together based on availability, interests, and general "Hey, I like RPing with you," but not exclusive as defined as a clique.
While I prefer that characters don't splinter off into their own mini-groups/tribes that separate them from the IC Locations, I understand that this may happen (i.e. a small group deciding to go off and create their own mini-camp outside the main delinquent camp). If that does happen, Staff will have to work to bring those splinter groups into the main story arc.
Because splinter groups promote exclusive cliquishness, I would prefer that the RP remain centralized. It is easier for playgroups to interact if they are all in the same IC location and forced to work together. But, I understand that splinters might happen, and I'll do my best to make sure there's some support system in place for those groups.
As I have been sitting here, ruminating on this, I think my best response now is to just be more deliberate on how story is being disseminated to the player base. Proactive players tend to end up as frequent participants in plots, but that does end up punishing players who have limited schedules, struggling to find opportunities, or just feeling like they end up missing the hook entirely.
As lame as this might be to some, thanks to those who have been open to me contacting them privately or them contacting me privately to help me see exactly what people are talking about concerning the cliquishness. Since my personal definition of "clique" wasn't meshing with what was being discussed here, I wasn't really able to see what people were talking about.
I do now, so thanks. I'm sorry to those who felt I was being irritatingly obtuse.
@Kanye-Qwest I don't know. The downvote pixies seem to be in full force all over the forums.
@GirlCalledBlu
So you don't want people to split from the main group and do their own thing, instead they should stay in the main camp.
But it has been stated in the thread that the leader is a staff alt, that makes the arguments that it is not a players not being railroaded seem a bit disingenuous.
@ThatGuyThere I've stated my preference, but did say that I will support groups that do splinter.
@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:
But it has been stated in the thread that the leader is a staff alt, that makes the arguments that it is not a players not being railroaded seem a bit disingenuous.
The Delinquents have no leader as you're using the term. That's actually part of the IC problem they have.
@GirlCalledBlu
That may be true, but I am sure am not alone in wondering just how much that is worth.
Officially supported but against staff preference can mean a world of different things in this hobby.
You may be sincere but given what history has to show, (by this i mean of MU*s in general, nothing about you whom I know nothing about) I would not blame anyone for doubting.
@ThatGuyThere Really? Being expected to stay within the confines of the defined theme/grid is considered "railroading" these days? @GirlCalledBlu is being far more generous than I would be in this situation if players decided to go off and do their own thing.
Staff is well within their rights to define the bounds of the game. It's like... I'm doing a Star Wars game set on Tattooine and you want to play on Hoth. Or I'm doing a Wild West game set in Tombstone and you want to go off to Deadwood. My answer would range from "No" to "Good luck, here's a TP Room - you're on your own".
@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:
@GirlCalledBlu
But it has been stated in the thread that the leader is a staff alt, that makes the arguments that it is not a players not being railroaded seem a bit disingenuous.
This keeps getting brought up, and I feel like it has been responded to, but I'll say it again: there is no defined leader of the camp. In fact, I'd say "the leader" changes from day to day, situation to situation. Some characters go to Grey -- said Staff alt -- for stuff, but he isn't the leader. There is no PC leader because that structure is left up to the characters to figure out.
I'll leave it up to @Seraphim73 to add more if he wishes to discuss his character, but I'm going to continue to stress that there is no defined leader of the delinquent camp.
That's not really addressing the suggestion, though. The suggestion was "if you are going to have this group's plots all focus on the same (staff) PCs, then you should support other people forming their own playgroups so they can get some ability to Do the Things"
@Auspice said in The 100: The Mush:
But there -are- settings that don't lend well to a MU, but are nonetheless very cool. Sense8? Super cool concept. It'd be good for a small RP group to do privately, but as a MU it'd be terrible.
Buddy of mine tried to get a Pacific Rim game off the ground that didn't fall into place, for various reasons. Many of them RL ones out of his control, but I feel like some of it was how difficult it was to get people to app in as pairs cooperatively, and to sync up players who came in solo into functional jaeger piloting relationships.
I would love to RP it, because it's got amazing potential for both interpersonal character stuff and big stompy robot violence, but it's probably best left to a smaller, closed group.
I still kinda miss my character. So it goes.
@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:
@GirlCalledBlu
That may be true, but I am sure am not alone in wondering just how much that is worth.
Officially supported but against staff preference can mean a world of different things in this hobby.
You may be sincere but given what history has to show, (by this i mean of MU*s in general, nothing about you whom I know nothing about) I would not blame anyone for doubting.
I don't blame anyone for doubting, guess that just means I have a lot to prove if that happens.
The reason I have that as a stated preference is because of what feedback we got from those who played the other 100 MUSH: it splintered fast and aggressively (edited because I do not know how to proof posts, haha). RP was so spread out, the story arc either ended up being like too little butter spread over too much bread or ended up only getting to the most proactive group and left the others in isolation in their tiny camps in the forests. Neither of those sound sustainable for this particular type of game.
I'm against the idea of the playerbase splitting off. If only because I've seen what happened far too many times when that happens. Players and characters get seperated, hardly ever act with each other and the game stagnates because nobody can ICly get along with each other, even if the players are just fine from a OOC standpoint.
When you split a game, it slows everything else down. The story, the progression, just about everything. This, again, is my opinion and my experience, I'm sure there are those with a different experience to say exactly why I'm wrong. If people want to call it 'railroading' because staff don't want to do something that just because some players may want to but would be detrimental to the game overall? Whatever, call it railroading then. As far as I'm concerned, it's keeping a game going.
@Three-Eyed-Crow
I think I know the game you're talking about. I've known people involved and I know a lot of them wanted it to work (I was currently Not-MUSHing when it was going on).
My personal unicorn as far as 'themes I wish would work, but don't seem to' is Stargate. Apparently it's been tried before and failed fantastically... but a part of me still wants to try someday.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
@Auspice said in The 100: The Mush:
@Three-Eyed-Crow
I think I know the game you're talking about. I've known people involved and I know a lot of them wanted it to work (I was currently Not-MUSHing when it was going on).
Yeah, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. Very much the wrong time, but I've come to the conclusion it probably wasn't a workable theme for a public game long-term anyway. At least, not in the way I'd like that theme to exist. There are compromises you could make with how the pairs function to make it more workable but, meh.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:
@Auspice said in The 100: The Mush:
@Three-Eyed-Crow
I think I know the game you're talking about. I've known people involved and I know a lot of them wanted it to work (I was currently Not-MUSHing when it was going on).Yeah, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. Very much the wrong time, but I've come to the conclusion it probably wasn't a workable theme for a public game long-term anyway. At least, not in the way I'd like that theme to exist. There are compromises you could make with how the pairs function to make it more workable but, meh.
It's really along the same lines as to why something like Sense8, Orphan Black, and other settings that are very focused on core people don't work. It's basically either play a pairing (and hope your partner doesn't disappear on you) or just be 'supporter #1939.' Playing support chars is good, but everyone should also have a chance to have a 'hero' char, too.
Group splintering may yet happen, but in an entirely organic way. Right now the Delinquents have a ceasefire treaty with the Grounders, but part of being able to get there in the first place was recognizing that in order to move forward, those who were sent to negotiate had to acknowledge themselves as part of the Ark, acting on behalf of the Ark. They chose to do so in order to get their ceasefire, well knowing that there is a possibility of some kind of splinter faction forming; those who support Ark governance and those who do not.
It is entirely possible that a second community will form made up of former Ark inhabitants that have chosen not to live under the new government. There are characters who are devoted to this idea, some who ride the middle, and others who are opposed either just in terms of their choice or as to what everyone should be doing. My own PC is still in "wait and see" mode, since the new laws have not been revealed yet. She doesn't know if they're going to be better or worse than what she's accustomed to.
The point is, opportunities for split-off are definitely there, and characters are pursuing discussion and interactions that involve such a circumstances happening - but this is something that needs to evolve over time. Right now is the time of "live together, die alone", and that has been proven ICly to be a valid line of thought.
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:
But it has been stated in the thread that the leader is a staff alt, that makes the arguments that it is not a players not being railroaded seem a bit disingenuous.
The Delinquents have no leader as you're using the term. That's actually part of the IC problem they have.
