Battling FOMO (any game)

[L. B. Heuschkel]

One of the issues I see all the time, on this board and on games, in myself and in others, is the dreaded FOMO. Feeling that you're not quite invited to the real party. You don't quite belong in the inner circle. Plot doesn't quite make it out to where you are. When things happen, they are over before you get to get involved. The same song on repeat from game to game -- there's an inner circle and then there's the rabble who never feel like they truly are included.

Please note: There are absolutely games where staff encourages an inner circle to close up and fuck the rest. Disregard those games for the purpose of this thread; I want to talk about games and game running where the intent (successful or not) is to include anyone who wants to be included.

It's something I keep in mind as a story runner, regardless of where I have been. How to make myself accessible to anyone who wants me; how to get wanted by others; how to signal that you're interested in doing things without signaling that you're a door mat.

People list lots of obstacles; from brain weasels to inconvenient time zones, from not being able to play every night, to lack of focus and too many old cliques and grudges. I don't want to discuss whether these issues are real -- they're all real to at least some of us.

What I want to discuss is ways that have WORKED -- when it comes to getting story to spread like ripples on a pond, reaching beyond the initial, most involved people and out to where everyone else are. How to make even very casual players feel like they can have a say if they want to. That if they remain uninvolved it's because this story does not interest them or they don't have time right now, but maybe the next one will and they will be welcomed if they jump into that one instead.

Making a game environment feel welcoming and inclusive is harder than it sounds like, and I'd love to swap stories of things that have worked at least some of the time for y'all. (We have plenty threads about when it doesn't work and everyone feels FOMO).

For me,

• Scheduling events up to three weeks in advance, and making it clear which kind of characters will be given preference. Not 'my buddies' but 'people with park ranger type skills'. A new player who doesn't know anyone has an 'in' there if they happen to have skills that fit the scene.

• Doing a fair number of open scenes in which recent happenings (from events) are talked about. Information is passed on to others in the form of gossip and small talk. Names and plot devices get wider distribution. You know it works when a couple of players go off to scene about something adjacent on their own.

• Keeping track of who ends up 'taking the reins' in events and scenes, scheduled and not. If it's always the same person, that person doesn't need special catering. The ones who are always there but don't get to say a lot, they're the ones I need to throw a little extra to -- they really want to be included but they're struggling.

• Not to be confused with the ones who turn up and act disinterested, drop out half way through, or feel like trying to push molasses uphill. They don't want to be there; don't waste precious energy on them that could go to the others who do want to be there.

• Rumours and gossip posts on a relevant forum: Give names and locations so that characters adjacent know who to ask and what to ask about. If you read on the forum that the building your office is in had a gas leak explosion, there's RP right there, talking to others in the same building about what the hell happened.

• Balancing different kinds of fun. You don't have much success with stark horror or epic adventure if there's never anything else. Mix and match genres. Include occasional slapstick. Black needs white, dark needs light. Audiences like different things.

• Which leads to, be clear what a scene is in advance. Is it comedic? Say so. Is it deep dark terror? Say it. Save others the frustration of being in something they don't like while others who do miss out instead.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm out of tea. For now.

[Carma]

This post is deleted!

[Pyrephox]

@carma said in Battling FOMO (any game):

Explicit directions on how to follow hooks is super useful as well. Some places I've been able to find the info, but then I have no idea how to turn it into a scene.

This is really important, I think. A lot of people are interested in following on hooks, but a lot of times, they don't necessarily know how, and they don't want to look stupid or foolish by doing The Wrong Thing, so they just fade back. The more explicit you can be about how to engage the more people you'll have who are willing to try and engage.

[il-volpe]

Sorry -- not talking about a way that has worked that I know of. I have never actually encountered a game that kept any kind of formal metric-of-inclusion. I think a lot of them ought to.

A very simple one would probably go a long way.

Proposal:

Each character has an inclusion-rating, which is +votes divided by participation points.

Participation points are given by GMs when GMs GM. If you were present for the scene, you get one PP. If you got to do something in the scene, you get three PP. If you saved the day, you get six.

Abelard has earned 120 +votes, and been in two scenes where he was just kinda there, and one where he stabbed Mothra in the eye. He has 8 PP. So his rating is 15.

Brigid has earned 142 +votes, but only been in one GMed scene, where she stole and drove the getaway car. She's got 3 PP, her rating is 47.33.

Camille has earned 130 +votes, and has been in 15 GMed scenes, has 55 PP. Rating is 2.36.

This rating ought to be visible on the GM's version of WHO. Probably it should just be visible to all, so that GMs who 'forget' to assign PP to their favourite players will get caught.

Under a lot of circumstances, it probably wouldn't be necessary to have any rules about participation ratings. GMs would likely see that it's desirable to try to get everybody's rating to be about the same, and away they'd go. As it is now, you get this self-perpetuating situation where GMs see GM-interaction as "activity" and "active player" as "good player" who deserves the rewards of GM-interaction. And further, have very little to remind them that other "less active" players continue to exist. It seems easy for people to slip into the thoughtless assumption that the players who are not getting GMed are not active enough to "deserve" it, but are active enough that they can readily keep themselves entertained while the GM and other players visit the Land of the Houyhnhnms.

[mietze]

The only thing I have truly seen work for most of the people (there are always outliers) is dynamic staff-run storytelling or responses that's accessible to pretty much everyone.

The main things I've seen to make that possible are severely curtailing the slots on a game (no alts or low alts, limited caps of players, ect), a lot of organization behind the scenes (plot boards where the storytellers note who participated/what happened/next steps if any), and having either enough staff willing to run stories or responses or someone who has a crazy amount of time on their hands and talent to pull it off. (I've seen both).

[Tinuviel]

@il-volpe said in Battling FOMO (any game):

Participation points are given by GMs when GMs GM.

Most games I see these days rely on players to do much of the day-to-day storyrunning, not staff members.

[il-volpe]

@tinuviel Could be, but I don't hear people going, "Abelard ran a plot for his friends and I wasn't included!" It's easier to respond to that by going, "I'll run my own darn plot, for me and my own friends."

I do hear "We need staff-run plots!" and "Staff ran another event for Abelard, Brigid and Camille, and wouldn't include me, that's the third time this month!"

[L. B. Heuschkel]

@tinuviel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

Most games I see these days rely on players to do much of the day-to-day storyrunning, not staff members.

That's one of those interesting things where I find people are very divided. Some players want staff to actively run a lot of things. Others (hi, I'm in that camp) want staff to run significantly less -- because when a game has a lot of staff-sanctioned plot, players inevitably start to attach less value to player-run staff, i.e. my stuff. It does suck when people don't want to do things because they feel that the stuff doesn't matter -- it's not staff run so why bother.

There's a happy middle ground and it lies somewhere around all plot is good plot, and staff and players both get access to the tools and the recognition for making things happen.

Games often die when that one staff member who ran everything burns out. I've been that person, and I know how valuable it is that players also make things happen themselves. Optimally (to me) there's always more things going on from more story runners than I know about, whether I'm staff or not.

On some level I do feel it's too easy to sit back as a player and just hold onto my popcorn while expecting staff to keep stuff running. It's obviously a commitment staff made when opening a game -- but we also need to remember that this is a hobby and no one gets paid for the work they put in. If things are going to keep staying lively and exciting, also for the story runners, things need to happen that they don't already know how will turn out, don't have to drive, don't need to do the homework for, too.

Or, well, that's how it works for me. I obviously don't speak for everyone. I do know I always seem to function best on games that have a main plot thread going but staff largely don't mind/encourage me to do all my own stuff on the side. I tell stories, that's what I do.

@il-volpe said in Battling FOMO (any game):

I do hear "We need staff-run plots!" and "Staff ran another event for Abelard, Brigid and Camille, and wouldn't include me, that's the third time this month!"

Staff obviously should get to run stuff for their personal circle too. If there's a pattern of 'friends only' every time, though, staff may have forgotten that they opened this game to the public, and some level of public accessibility is not unreasonable to expect.

Personally I try very hard to do a 50/50 split. Half the stuff I do I do for me -- this is my char's development, his story, with his buddies. The other half, I either run as narrator or through an NPC, or at most, in a low key presence as my char -- and I will schedule those, make them accessible to anyone who signs on.

It's pure selfishness. If I only play with my existing mates I don't meet new exciting people. Running stuff for others lets me feed my story telling drive and meet new playmates. Win-win.

[faraday]

This FOMO thing hasn't really been an issue on most of the games I've been on, I think due to their core nature. There are some common factors that have worked on a variety of game settings:

• Open plots - If just about everybody can come to just about everything, then people don't feel left out if they miss one battle/mission/whatever.
• PRP equality - If players can do the same sorts of cool for themselves as staff can, then you take away some of the "IC capital" that commonly makes staff run stuff special.
• Cooperative structures - If you take away jockeying for power and resources, there's less need for staff intervention to allow your character to progress.
• Keeping people together (geographically and factions) - The more ready connections you have between PCs, the easier it is to find RP in general.

@l-b-heuschkel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

If there's a pattern of 'friends only' every time, though, staff may have forgotten that they opened this game to the public, and some level of public accessibility is not unreasonable to expect.

It's unreasonable to expect if staff didn't set any such expectation. If you're just running a game to play with your friends, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Just be up front about it. Ultimately, nobody is paying for a service, or forced to be there. If it isn't fun, don't play.

Now, I think the most successful staff will set clear expectations ahead of time of what they plan to do for their players, and will try to keep the majority of players engaged and having fun.

[L. B. Heuschkel]

@faraday said in Battling FOMO (any game):

If you're just running a game to play with your friends, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Just be up front about it. Ultimately, nobody is paying for a service, or forced to be there. If it isn't fun, don't play.

This. Nothing wrong with creating a game for your friends. I am on one with just seven players, all is good. But if you do open the game to the public and invite everyone in -- then you need to have at least thought about what you're offering. Or make it clear from the landing page that they're welcome to use the same sandbox, but stuff is not going to be made with the specific purpose of inclusion.

[Seraphim73]

I agree with a whole lot of what’s being said here. One more thing that I think is incredibly important is that Staff PCs be inclusive. Sure, they can ICly be prickly or grumpy or whatever, but having them explicitly invite people “in” on IC happenings and throwing their IC weight (and they’ll have some if only for OOC reasons) being the suggestions of folks outside their usual circle can be incredibly useful to combating FOMO. I think that this not only counters the impression of Staff exclusivity, but also engages “outsiders,” helping them get natural hooks into what’s going on.

[faraday]

@seraphim73 said in Battling FOMO (any game):

I think is incredibly important is that Staff PCs be inclusive

For me, it's staff NPCs who should be inclusive, if you're trying to include people. My PC is there for my enjoyment, and I think that mingling staff responsibilities with your pretendy fun-times can lead to rapid burnout and unwelcome IC/OOC bleed. (People thinking that getting buddybuddy with staff PCs is the way to Plot or Stuff, etc.)

That's not to say you shouldn't be inclusive with your PCs, but I think it should be for fun not out of obligation.

Of course this is different if games are letting staff PCs = FCs, but I generally think that's ill-advised for other reasons.

[Ganymede]

I have not understood FOMO for a while.

It is inevitable you will miss something online. Unless you are around 24/7, this is an inevitability. I have accepted that I will miss out on things all the time due to my schedule. And since my only other alternative is to stop playing, and therefore always miss everything, I acknowledge that I will never be at everything.

Or even many things.

So, I suppose I don’t even engage in the fight.

[Arkandel]

I'm late to this thread. But IMHO a lot of FOMO doesn't have as much to do with the game itself (although it's certainly been known to happen) as much as it does with players feeling socially insecure about being left out.

What certainly doesn't help is how that same kind of insecurity leads others to over-promote themselves. Seeing them openly brag about their amazing RP the day before and pat each other in the back over public channels when you have been sitting on your thumbs looking to do something - anything at all - can have that effect.

[Ganymede]

@arkandel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

But IMHO a lot of FOMO doesn't have as much to do with the game itself (although it's certainly been known to happen) as much as it does with players feeling socially insecure about being left out.

So, I go back to what I said: you are going to be left out of things.

It's an inevitability.

I understand that people may feel anxiety about falling out of loop, but, unless you are completely dedicated to being on a game all of the time, you are going to be left out of things.

It's going to happen.

Hell, even if you are? You can't be in every scene. You can't be in every little event that occurs on any game of any appreciable size. You can try to, or get the scoop OOCly, but that's going to lead to social ostracism because few people tolerate folks who have to be in everything, so you are going to be left out of things.

It's the nature of this hobby.

So, I don't understand why anyone with FOMO continues to play; how would you ever relax?

[Tinuviel]

@ganymede You're typing like there's any sort of logic behind how people feel. People can know perfectly well that how they're feeling is unreasonable, but they still feel that way. Just repeating "you're going to miss out" isn't going to help people that have an actual fear of missing out.

[Arkandel]

@ganymede said in Battling FOMO (any game):

how would you ever relax?

I think there are also byproducts of this kind of anxiety.

For example wanting to 'play a needed role' to the point of sometimes being defensive when others roll into the same niche. Hint: It's not types of roles which are needed, it's players.

Or trying to play someone who's good at everything 'to fit into plots'. While it's true some STs do create plots not everyone will fit in, not fitting in can be a blast, and the right kind of player - once again - trumps all else.

[Coin]

@arkandel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

What certainly doesn't help is how that same kind of insecurity leads others to over-promote themselves. Seeing them openly brag about their amazing RP the day before and pat each other in the back over public channels when you have been sitting on your thumbs looking to do something - anything at all - can have that effect.

Yeah. Agreed.

[silverfox]

@tinuviel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

@ganymede You're typing like there's any sort of logic behind how people feel. People can know perfectly well that how they're feeling is unreasonable, but they still feel that way.

This is real, legit, and I felt it to my soul. I know my thoughts are utterly irrational 99% of the time, but it is still there and it is still very real to me.

[mietze]

I wonder sometimes if stating "i feel like I'm behind/missing out" is knowingly or even unconsciously said because it is safer than saying "I'm worried that no one will want to RP with me/think I'm worth playing with now/if I'm not around, including people I like a lot."

I have recently realized (now that I have some RL breathing space am no longer constantly in crisis stress mode RL) that even though I thought absence making my play irrelevant is what I thought i was worried about, really what I most feared was that people I enjoyed RPing with really did not like my RP/thought i was boring/didn't want to talk to me anymore.

The fact that virtually everyone i know has less time for similar reasons that I did (stress, RL, not logging in because they dont want to be a downer) seemed to feed into the irrational "we haven't played/they haven't gotten back to me because I must have done something wrong or offended them or bored them" cycle. I wonder how many people thought the same of me over the last year in particular. even knowing that intellectually i am still struggling stupidly with the "am I still liked/wanted" feels.

So I think sometimes expressions of FOMO can be a more socially acceptable way of expressing fear that they're worth play/story. Which means that I'm not sure you can really truly eliminate that through policies. And while ideally I think it would be great to have an environment where someone could ask for reassurance without fear of weirdness, im not sure that is feasible or fair either. Hell i find it hard to ask that of people that I know like me! Especially when I'm feeling uncertain of my 'place'. But maybe people reaching out to tell other people esp new or less frequent fliers about how they really enjoyed having them along (if they did) helps ease that a bit.