Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

In my opinion, as anecdotal as it is, there is no difference here. Club or home, it is still your property and you (the game owner) have the duty, responsibility, and privilege of setting the rules for staying therein.

But once you start inviting people into your home and letting them invite their friends and advertising on Craigslist that people can stop by your home, the amount of control you have is decreased, by social convention. The responsibility of a club owner for their guests is much higher than the responsibility they have to guests at their home.

Home owners don't have to worry about Yelp reviews. Club owners at least have to worry about the court of public opinion, which can undermine the goal of that club. They are in the public eye in how they deal with things they believe are issues.

As Mushers, we have lived through too much shitty staff behavior and too lax staff behavior about shitty players. It's easy for staff to weed out members of their club as a conceit, and not a service to it. But when it's your home? The circle of members is very personal and often private.

Of course, this wasn't always true. There was a time where if your wife wasn't a fantastic hostess, you wouldn't be allowed to network with the higher ups. Thank god we've changed.

[Arkandel]

@Thenomain said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

But once you start inviting people into your home and letting them invite their friends and advertising on Craigslist that people can stop by your home, the amount of control you have is decreased, by social convention. The responsibility of a club owner for their guests is much higher than the responsibility they have to guests at their home.

When you're staff you're responsible for the overall health, theme and direction of your game; I don't need to tell you that, though. The only way you can exercise that responsibility is having sufficient control over it - you're correct in that it doesn't take a tyrannical despot to do so, however.

I think where some staff members fail at is in overcompensating. One doesn't need to compromise their entire vision for their MU* if they collaborate with their players - they can enrich it instead. After all there's only so much creativity (and time!) a single person or small group has, whereas the MU*'s history is coauthored by its characters; again, though, you already knew that.

What's therefore frustrating is when such administrators turn themselves into brick walls where nothing not of their own making sticks. There doesn't need to be back-and-forth, they don't have to take every suggestion, but listening to fair points or constructive criticism pays off if for no other reason then at least because it helps players feel it's their game, too. And that facilitates their own investments in it.

I've been in pet-project MU* and... well, I had mixed results from them. Some parts were great, some less so. What I do know is that if I feel staff wants to default to their-way-or-the-highway then I also immediately assume a reserved stance from my end; I will not volunteer to go above and beyond anything that's not guaranteed returns for my investment. So they can have their precious walled gardens but I'll pay the smallest price of admission in it as well - I think that's fair enough.

Does that make sense?

[Lithium]

@Arkandel By the same token, there is nothing /wrong/ with a staffer saying: This is the theme of the game. It is what the game is built for and towards. That isn't going to change because someone or even a few someone's don't like it.

By creating characters that break the theme, they are actively trying to rebel against what the game is all about, that, in my mind, can make a person a problem player because it breaks the immersion for the people who /do/ like the theme, and play on the game for the theme, or rules, etc.

There is no such thing as a perfect game, and this is something players, and staffers need to realize. I agree with your points about leaving if it's not something you like, but trying to smash up the decorations on your way out?

That's just messed up.

[Arkandel]

@Lithium said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

@Arkandel By the same token, there is nothing /wrong/ with a staffer saying: This is the theme of the game. It is what the game is built for and towards. That isn't going to change because someone or even a few someone's don't like it.

Of course not. It's their game at the end of the day. But that's what I'm saying, there's nothing wrong with any approach mentioned so far - including a player saying "well, that's not for me". There shouldn't be hard feelings either way about it.

By creating characters that break the theme, they are actively trying to rebel against what the game is all about, that, in my mind, can make a person a problem player because it breaks the immersion for the people who /do/ like the theme, and play on the game for the theme, or rules, etc.

Well, sure, but creating unthematic characters is not the only way you can disagree with staff.

There is no such thing as a perfect game, and this is something players, and staffers need to realize. I agree with your points about leaving if it's not something you like, but trying to smash up the decorations on your way out?

That's just messed up.

When I leave a game I just... stop logging on. No posts, no declarations on channels, no farewells. But I think I make the runners aware with my issues before I did so; I simply never really add "... or else" to them, since that should be implied.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

Thank god we've changed.

We have?

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

@Thenomain said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

Thank god we've changed.

We have?

Sure. Now it's sometimes your husband.

[Songtress]

Personally I've yet to see an interestingly done' Religious' game. Fantasy Religion as it were. And now I'd really like to. It'd probably have to be a Lords and Ladies game.. right?

[Goyim]

You'll never see it done either. Any time you've got a church that's even slightly morally dubious it will inevitably devolve into a warhammer-esque sausage fest with godly men blowing up planets because one of it's inhabitants missed sunday mass.

[Kanye Qwest]

I read that as Sunday mess, and man. You're kind of a beast when you're hungry. Have a snickers.

[Songtress]

Oh. Well it was a weird thought.

[Derp]

There is a slim chance that it could be done, so long as all the faiths have at least a decent foothold and some real power. Thinks 'Christians v. Pagans' via 'The Mists of Avalon'.

There would still be a lot of dickwaving, of course, but if neither side has the option of just completely eliminating the other, it could be done.