The 100: The Mush
-
I didn't play either Fifth World or The 100 for any length of time enough to comment extensively on them, but I will say my issues for Not Sticking Around were quite different.
I feel like the criticisms of the headstaff spot-lighting their own PCs were a lot more applicable to Fifth World.
Maybe The 100 had these problems too, but the thing that made me want to log out and not come back were the other players.
Whether this represents growth or just me being annoyed by different things at different times, I don't know.
-
Honestly I don't think the solution is far out of sight, it just requires a little less laziness on the part of staff, familiarity with the usual pitfalls, and some degree of self-awareness.
IE, if you're a staffer responsible for running Royal NPCs X, Y and Z... maybe don't pick a top tier noble as your PC alt. There's quite a lot of gap between the hysterical 'omg you don't want staffers to enjoy their own game' and them dominating the upper tiers so thoroughly. And realistically, running the NPCs well probably precludes having enough time to be a good leader in a PC slot, so there's multiple reasons it shouldn't happen.
Alternatively, maybe change the setup. It seems like most staffers googled noble titles (or played CK2) and understand that there's a King and then Dukes and then Counts and then Barons and recreate that as an absolute hierarchy... completely ignoring that history was basically never like that, ever, and/or that this is a bad way to set up a game (as basically everyone below some cutoff tier is going to be a worthless pleb). You can really just go for a flatter structure without breaking anything, and while there's still probably going to be power tiers, it's best not to set it up with such degrees of striation that you have people 2, 3, and 4 steps removed from any kind of real power.
-
-
@Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:
I have an opinion. Yay. We'll all live thru this, I promise.
The issue, Sparky, isn't that you have an opinion. It isn't even that anybody necessarily disagrees with your opinion. (I certainly don't because, as stated before, I have no opinion on the people in question.)
The issue is that you express your opinion like a cross between an incontinent baboon and a three year old child throwing a tantrum.
edited to add
Cases in point:Also, I apologize, I didn't mean to sound patronizing when I talked about people who don't have a lot of out-of-the-home outlets.
…he said while proceeding to be probably the most patronizing shithead this side of @Ganymede and @Thenomain blended together on their worst days over the past decade…
I'd like to say that I always try to keep those people in mind when I'm out there, MU*ing.
I'm sure they're happy to hear that you're thinking of all the little folk.
In the least patronizing way possible, the reality is that I have a wife, a coffee house, guitars, clean bill of health, working legs, live in one of the largest cities in America, have a biweekly tabletop group, a corner bar, a working car, and a couple of downtown areas with regular concerts and events.
I know no one asked for me to speak on their behalf […]
…he said as he proceeded to speak on their behalf…
[…]I really do feel for those people who run into these shit issues and have to keep plucking the chicken.
@Ghost is the kind of person who spends his life "working for others. You can tell the others by the hunted look."
[…] I've offset my old frustration with some aspects of MUgaming with shrugging and voting with my feet.
Yeah, that's what your incoherent rants look like. Shrugging and voting with your feet. Keep telling yourself that, Sparky, and even you may some day believe it.
-
@bored said in The 100: The Mush:
IE, if you're a staffer responsible for running Royal NPCs X, Y and Z... maybe don't pick a top tier noble as your PC alt.
Definitely agree with you there. This happened on a few L&L games I was on where the royal NPCs X, Y, and Z were played by the same Staffer who was also a HOH. It was very, very messy.
Because people keep saying this, and I'm really wanting some information... If I can ask a question, where I am genuinely looking for a constructive response...
It keeps being mentioned that on The Fifth World, my PCs were central to the metaplot. I didn't think they were. At all. So, if anyone could maybe either PM me with details or add details here, I'd appreciate it. Perceptions count, so if someone perceived my PCs (Ellinor, Letha, Devon, and Lionel) being lynchpins for the metaplot, I'd appreciate some feedback.
Thanks.
-
@Lotherio said in The 100: The Mush:
@tek said in The 100: The Mush:
@Sunny If it was real power that impacted people in a way they couldn't avoid, I might agree with you.
This is a silly debate, but internet bullying is a real thing. Internet isn't a magical land, its not like saying my imaginary friend abused me. I've had real family snuff it from internet bullying. This is like you saying that this relative of mine was just being silly for taking their life cause its only internet and they should of walked away?
Yes, internet bullying is a real thing with real consequences, and abuse is absolutely a thing that can happen via the internet.
But nothing that Andy and Orion did was abuse, so that dialogue is irrelevant on this thread. Even if I agreed 100% with the allegations @Ghost has made against them — which I don't, by the way, so thank you but no thank you I do not need your chivalry — being selfish and writing stories that revolve around oneself is not abuse.
I'm sorry, did someone force you to play these games? Did @Seraphim73 and @GirlCalledBlu threaten you that something bad would happen if you stopped playing or if you didn't play on their terms? Did they mock or deride you for your choices? I bloody well doubt it, sir, considering that even on this thread, responding to your bullshit, they've been as courteous as they can be, to a far greater degree than you deserve or I'm willing to offer.
So yes, I too have a problem with the use of the word abuse in this context, and it's not because I question the impact that stories and netizens can have on vulnerable individuals. It's because people using it in this particular context, on this thread, are being hyperbolic and sensitive to the degree of choosing to be offended where no insult was made. They made something you didn't like. You disliked their style. That's the way of it, sometimes. I paid with hard-earned cash to go see Mad Max in cinema and I didn't like it either. You don't see me crying abuse over the deception of having the hype around that film oversold.
You need to find better things to be offended over and cry 'abuse' for, @Ghost — super ironic coming from someone who takes as much issue as you do with SJWs, too. May I recommend booking a session with a dominatrix if you're that desperate for something to angst about?
-
@Kestrel said in The 100: The Mush:
@Lotherio said in The 100: The Mush:
@tek said in The 100: The Mush:
@Sunny If it was real power that impacted people in a way they couldn't avoid, I might agree with you.
This is a silly debate, but internet bullying is a real thing. Internet isn't a magical land, its not like saying my imaginary friend abused me. I've had real family snuff it from internet bullying. This is like you saying that this relative of mine was just being silly for taking their life cause its only internet and they should of walked away?
Yes, internet bullying is a real thing with real consequences, and abuse is absolutely a thing that can happen via the internet.
But nothing
I was pointing out hypocritical comment, not taking any sides as concerns the staffers being discussed.
-
To be actually constructive for once, I am growing into the opinion that if staff want to have PCs that aren't on the bottom of thr totem pole, the game needs multiple spheres and if someone has a character in a sphere, they cannot staff it.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@surreality said in The 100: The Mush:
I'mma just go on record and say that having spoken to both of them generally on and off, both @Ghost and @tek are both pretty cool people, explosions or not.
Surr, you know I love you like a sister (and I mean that Kentucky style!), but I'mma gonna go on record and say that I'mma have to disagree with you on @Ghost. Literally 100% of the time that I've seen him here he's been a twat. I'm not even falling back to the Chambers Constant here (99.44%). 100%.
-
@Ominous said in The 100: The Mush:
To be actually constructive for once, I am growing into the opinion that if staff want to have PCs that aren't on the bottom of thr totem pole, the game needs multiple spheres and if someone has a character in a sphere, they cannot staff it.
Definitely.
I just have no need to have my characters high on the totem pole.
Granted, I have had characters in places of power/leadership, but never on a game or in a sphere where I was a Staffer -- which sometimes has its own problems, where you are the lead Staff of one Sphere, but have a high power character in another, and then people are wondering if you're making Staff decisions about your sphere because it benefits your PC elsewhere. It is kind of a hard road to travel.
-
@Ominous said in The 100: The Mush:
To be actually constructive for once, I am growing into the opinion that if staff want to have PCs that aren't on the bottom of thr totem pole, the game needs multiple spheres and if someone has a character in a sphere, they cannot staff it.
I agree with you, but most people seem to be extremely against it. I don't know that it can be a realistic expectation to have staff not play in their sphere or be power restricted or disclosed in any way. Some of this is from the scarcity problem. So I think to a certain degree you really if you're going to play anywhere need to just mentally prep yourself for some (witting in some cases, unwitting/unintended in others) revolution around staffer alts no matter where you play. Even where alts are not disclosed, people do tend to always know, in my observation (maybe not everyone, but enough); and it's a natural inclination even with the best of intentions. I'm not sure why people are in such denial about it.
So maybe instead of being in denial, we should just embrace it. If you are having fun at a place, don't worry about it. If you don't get along with staff as players, no matter if they had a pc or not, your fun would probably be curtailed at some point, so maybe time to move on. Or if you're having fun at first, and then see things sliding to somewhere you don't like, instead of making it "OMG THEY ARE EVILLLLLLLLLL HOBBY WRECKERS" just..."I think their style of management sucks, and it irritates me and I hate it, so I'm moving on. Thanks!"
-
Staffer alt influence, in my experience often is most impactful when they are NOT the highest ranking person on the totem pole. Because as word gets out, players gravitate towards looking towards them for any kind of clues (even if they give none) especially about metaplot (which tends to undermine the PCs who ARE higher up on the totem pole). Having a PC in the game does not, IMO, give you an accurate read on the game itself--there may be player PCs trying to wrangle people and get things moving with the plot seeds they've been given, while being ignored in favor of waiting on the staff alts (and bitching at those staff alts that nobody in the player run PC leadership is doing anything). Sometimes bad actor staffers will capitalize on this to be controlling while being able to claim on paper they're not breaking any ethics boundaries, but know damn well that they can undercut/undermine and do so, or blame plot slowness on "well that person isn't doing things correctly/getting it out to people." Sometimes people don't even realize that they're gravitating towards staff pcs, or staffers don't realize that their treatment/response time/eagerness they're getting may be different from normal players. And sometimes it works, and people relax into not worrying about it, under good staffers who are managing themselves well, and being careful about cliques and perceptions. It's pretty exhausting though, to do that.
-
I honestly don't remember the Fifth World stuff too well in terms of which characters were what, only that I had a hard time getting a piece of the plot despite having a character who for all intents and purposes made a lot of sense to be highly involved (one of the oldest PCs, head of minor house responsible for a lot of shipbuilding, denied having any kind of position in the fleet administration and told to 'work toward it' in a vague way despite the guy being in his late 40s or 50s, IE presumably mid career at least). My perception was less of specific staffer malfeasance (although I did remember a lot of eye-rolly very public relationship spectacle stuff) as it being a lot of RP among friends and outsiders just being kind of clueless on what to do at all.
@mietze and others:
I don't think its impossible to do, I really don't, and acting like its naive to expect otherwise just seems like an excuse. Staffers don't need to be excluded from the fun, staffers can run fun from their characters or NPCs for all I care, all they really need to do is make the slightest effort to make sure there are good ways for outsiders to be involved. Frankly, it's as simple as acknowledging that a MU open to the public is not a private sandbox (and that if you have private sandbox fantasies, you should handle those in the appropriate venue). Some people will not be able to grasp this, but I feel like in the era of the gentler, more mature
WoraMSB this stuff isn't rocket science nor above our abilities as a community. -
I am aware of the connotations of pillowfort on Soapbox/WORA/SWOFA and attempt to use the term as accurately as possible.
I'm trying to trim down my hyperbole.
-
Bored, the standard of "slightest effort" can range anywhere from meaning "if it's not all about my PC instead you are horrible" to "as long as scenes are being run you can have 5 of your Alts in them and it's cool with me" and everything inbetween.
I take phrases like "making an effort" well salted now because of huge disparity I've seen in perception of the same event I was present for.
-
Hopefully it's obvious I'm using normal language under the assumption of a reasonable-person reading. I'm not one of the lawyers here. So I mean I don't mind some wiggle room on either side, rather than some hard line stance on smaller details of staff may never do X or must always do Y. I'm also not trying to make a sweeping declaration about all MU*dom nor all staffing or ethical issues (some of which I'm a bit more grimly pragmatic about than my optimism here would indicate).
Merely, circling back to my original post, I do not think it is a big stretch for staffers to consider and then avoid the simple pattern described there as a first step, best practices kind of thing. People will still alt cheat and staff power abuse and clique and gossip and harass and every bit of shitty behavior we've observed through approaching two decades of the hobby. But I think if people paused to think about this (or several other issues) when starting a game, it would go a long way, especially because as I note several times, I doubt much of this is intentional malice so much as careless lack of self-awareness.
-
-
I also agree that it's not impossible. But there's a difference between "possible" and "going to happen." I see people all the time critique behavior that they themselves engage in, so blatantly I've laughed out loud a few times. It's one thing to know what should be done. But people are people and I think expectations probably are pragmatically adjusted accordingly. Not in a "negative" way but one in which one maintains a healthier boundary with what you'd like vs. dealing with what you have.
-
@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:
@Ominous said in The 100: The Mush:
To be actually constructive for once, I am growing into the opinion that if staff want to have PCs that aren't on the bottom of thr totem pole, the game needs multiple spheres and if someone has a character in a sphere, they cannot staff it.
Definitely.
I just have no need to have my characters high on the totem pole.
Granted, I have had characters in places of power/leadership, but never on a game or in a sphere where I was a Staffer -- which sometimes has its own problems, where you are the lead Staff of one Sphere, but have a high power character in another, and then people are wondering if you're making Staff decisions about your sphere because it benefits your PC elsewhere. It is kind of a hard road to travel.
I have to stop you here and say something. On The 100, you were so eager to get Grounder characters available. And then when they were, you specifically asked me if I thought it would be a bad thing for you to have the 'Lincoln' type of Grounder. (ie. the special snowflake, different from the rest of the Grounders, got put into a spotlight position often kind of character. For anyone that didn't want The 100..) The simple fact that you felt the need to ask a third party about it shows that you understood that you would be putting yourself into a spotlight position and setting yourself up as a major character. So its rather disingenuous of you to say that you never have characters in positions of power/leadership. Doubly so since your husband put his first character into a position where he was very loud and opinionated and strong enough that few people really wanted to challenge him outright, which put him into a leadership position even if he's protesting that he doesn't want to be. Also.. that you and a handful of your friends had started playing the game weeks before it was open to everyone, and thus were guaranteed to have more xp/higher stats that nobody else was privy to? Kinda shitty. You set yourselves up as players to have every advantage, to be at the front of every new thing, every major decision... and then claim that you don't do that.
I'm not saying you're a terrible person, you aren't. But you are definitely lying to yourself and others about what you do in a game.
-
I second this. This is precisely the type of behavior that is problematic, that I think some outside oversight would help curb. This behavior is a problem, and it did happen precisely like that. Protesting that there was no desire for a leadership position WHILE TAKING ONE...actions are much louder than words.
