The Desired Experience

[Devrex]

@faraday This 100%. There was once a post...somewhere, I don't remember where, where someone said, "You support the game just by logging on when you can because that encourages others that there is fun to be found here, but if they see a dead WHO they'll just assume that's not the case."

Those 4 people are unavailable to the rest of the playerbase if they're "having a private card game" or they're playing off in a room, but if they're playing off in that room using the framework I gave them, not getting in staff's face constantly, are never bothering other players or creating any problems, and one or two of them do in fact branch out and those two stick around in part because they are having so much fun with the first two then win, win, win.

Why anyone wants to shove their face against the windows of the 4-Sammich Club and glare because they might be having some fun instead of going off to find their own fun is beyond me.

[il-volpe]

@devrex Names on the WHO stop working that way if/when people figure out that they correspond to characters unavailable for RP. Remember OOC-bits?

[Devrex]

@il-volpe Well yes, obviously if one person is logging on 15 staff alts or OOC bits or whatever then yes obviously that stops being effective, but it's also not the only thing people look at to see if RP is happening. Before logs I hit a quick +where. People in rooms with each other? Yeah okay good enough. On Ares I now scan the logs. Logs happening? Yeah okay good enough.

Which means yeah. They're still contributing. And like @Faraday said, staff creates a framework. It's more like hosting a block party than a cocktail party. And yeah as a staffer I sometimes will check in, you having fun, can I help out, oh you're interested in that plothook go talk to XYZ guy he's got info...but that's all the staff can or should be expected to do.

Nobody, and I can't stress this enough, owes anybody their creative labor for any reason, nobody owes anyone a chance, "and hey I apologize but I'm already booked up" isn't something jerks say, it's something people with full schedules say. If you've been waiting and waiting to finally get to sit down with your friend who has just this tiny handful of free hours and his story is important to your story and you sit down harmlessly to have a really story-relevant convo with them being told "Well shame on you for saying that was private" it's like...but...but I can't have that convo with them if other people are around, because we wouldn't, because it's not appropriate for that, because the whole dynamic changes, so you're like...maligning the casual player who has one to three nights a month and you're maligning the player who really enjoys playing with that player...and who might not be as into playing with everyone else if they can't get their story bits with their friend too, but who has more time than friend and will certainly seek out others on other nights of the week.

And it still really does materially work out for the playerbase. @Derp has allowed himself to be drawn in my wake while I say hey let's go follow this plot lead (and RP with other people), here's this guy, I don't know if you'll like him, but if you wanna come you'll welcome...and he goes ahead and does...or some story springs up between us and we do indeed spread it to other players. Things have happened on behalf of other people just because we were given some space and breathing room to play the way we needed and wanted to play.

And for the love of god, saying, "Hey in general this other tactic might be more effective at getting what you want because it makes you more fun" is not the same thing as saying "just suck less." I cannot think of any time in the history of any game I've played on where I've needed to get a bit insular myself for mental or physical health reasons or working-two-job reasons or working-14-hours-a-day-reasons where "just suck less, my guy" has been the actual answer.

[faraday]

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

"I don't know you and don't have the time/energy/inclination to see if you really suck or not, but go away until you suck less."

I really don't understand why you keep equating "I'm here to RP with specific people" with "you suck", or why you equate "Sorry can't play right now" with "go away until you suck less". They're just... not connected.

It shouldn't matter why I'm here to RP with specific people. Maybe I'm shy. Maybe I'm self-conscious about my RP. Maybe I have a newborn baby at home and only have an hour to RP and choose to spend it with my bestie. Maybe meeting someone new/unfamiliar requires an extra level of creativity that I don't have it in me to give.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with you.

[il-volpe]

@faraday Because, as @mietze points out and has been demonstrated in the thread, "just suck less" and "If you were fun, people would play with you," tends to be what people actually say.

[Runescryer]

Hmmm...A thought has occurred to me...

I present to you 'Runescryer's Law of MU's'...

"Given sufficient population and lack of Events, all MU's, regardless of theme, become sex MU's"

[mietze]

Sometimes giving a list of Things You Should Do to someone whom you do not know (and therefore don't know what they have/have not done) is helpful or will be taken with some grace.

And sometimes it comes across like being one of Those People who when someone says "I've just been diagnosed with <insert diagnosis here> or I'm really struggling with X" is all immediately "whats so bad about that? Just take this vitamin/have a growth mindset/omg its just a made up or popular thing, snap out it" or treating the person like an idiot.

Depends on the day, the person, and the delivery. If you share a frustration you have to be wiling to be treated shittily or assumptions made. If you offer advice when you've not been asked or aren't aware of the actual context, sometimes you won't be actually helpful and can even kinda come off as a dick. That is to say, assumptions will often bite you on the ass, either way.

[Devrex]

@il-volpe Are they saying that? Or are they saying:

"I wonder what would happen if you yourself brought some nice sandwiches to the potluck? If you baked some lovely homemade French bread and got the really good deli meat and whipped it up with a fine aioli and put crisp fresh vegetables in it?"

Would you even care what the Original Sandwich Group is doing at that point, or would you be too busy passing out your own lovely sandwiches?

As another way to look at this:

Sandwich Bob brings 4 sandwiches. It's all he can afford. Only 4% of the attendees get to enjoy his sandwiches.

Joe also loves Bob's sandwiches. He brings some casserole. About 25% of the people there eat the casserole.

Henry loves Bob's sandwiches, and he bakes brownies every month and about 50% of the folks there feast on those brownies.

Jane loves Bob's sandwiches. She has one every time. She also brings that really fantastic dip people like and that feeds a good 75% of the attendees. Jane is staff. She's not the host but she busts butt to do dishes and manage the Google cal and help organize the venue.

And of course, there are more servings of everything else for everyone else cause...the sandwiches fed people.

On the contention that Bob is ruining things for everyone cause everyone is awful jealous of those sandwiches, after reading Jane the riot act for selfishly accepting a sandwich and making sure Bob gets a little dip, Host loses Bob's invitations in the mail.

Joe's casseroles disappear next, cause he was really there for those sandwiches.

A few other attendees really liked the casserole, and Joe, so they go find a different potluck.

Henry holds on awhile longer, but damn, Joe's casseroles were kind of integral to his experience...so he goes where Joe went.

Jane, dutiful soul that she is, keeps on for a bit, because there are other people counting on her and her dip and her labor and she doesn't want to disappoint them no mater how much her own experience has been diminished...but at 1/2 energy. The dip just isn't as good, she delegates some of that other labor to someone else or just doesn't do it, Host has to either pop in and do it or it doesn't get done...

See where this is going? But by god, Host sure showed Bob for his rudeness and the person who complained to Host to make sure Host did that because they felt lonely and left out gets...well...what?

[mietze]

@faraday i think the two are getting conflated (i am here to rp specifically with my small peep circle/if you are having trouble integrating into a game obviously you suck or are lazy or don't know how to mush). I think they are separate issues for the most part though of course they can overlap back and forth.

Whether that is the small group getting ticked bc they're not being included in larger meta stuff or not reached out to (bc they don't respond usually) or someone has lost the small group they were part of and is having trouble transitioning or integrating esp if there us resentment to that group or the wider game culture isn't as friendly as the friends group they started with, or any other situation.

It can be complicated im sure we have all seen it.

[Derp]

@mietze

I mean -- it's really not that complicated.

Rule 0 or Whatever: Nobody owes anything to anyone other than what they willingly agree to. Period.

It doesn't matter what complications or mitigating factors there are, what they have been diagnosed with, how badly their divorce is going, how much their job sucks, what happened to their playgroup, what the game thinks of them as a whole. Unless you have made a clear commitment to someone to do a thing, you don't owe them anything, regardless of what their circumstances are.

You just don't.

It only gets complicated when people try to think up reasons why the Rule 0 above doesn't actually apply.

It always applies.

[Ganymede]

@il-volpe

I have literally never said that and will never say that.

But I only have four sandwiches. I can spread them around as best I can, but I refuse to be told who I give them to. That said, where I am right now I came in with no friends. I give sandwiches to whoever wants them. I am lucky if someone takes one.

I still only have four sandwiches. And there is being an awful lot inferred from what I said that simply isn’t what I ever intended.

[mietze]

@derp what does someone having difficult integrating have anything to do with requiring anything of anyone else?

It is okay to feel down about that, to understand the reasons behind it that make it nobody's fault, without making the assumption that the person feeling left out wants to force themselves on anyone.

The complexity comes in balancing out as a person the desire to be part of things and also to not want to intrude/impose upon others.

Wanting to be involved doesn't mean wanting to force anyone to do anything against their will.

[il-volpe]

@ganymede Not sure why you think I meant you. I wasn't thinking that.

Also, saying, "Bringing only four sandwiches and giving them only to the same four people every time is not cool," is not the same as telling you who you must give your sandwiches to. You can only bring as much as you can bring to the pot luck, nobody expects you to make it a hardship on yourself to bring something, nobody is saying your having only four sandwiches reflects badly on you.

@Devrex You're describing a situation where sandwich clubs are invisible and harmless. There are a lot of dishes at this potluck. At one where there are fewer dishes and a lot of sandwich club members it goes:

Abelard brings four sandwiches. He gives them to Brigid, Camille, Darius, and Euphonia.

Brigid brings three brownies. She gives them to Abelard, Camille, and Darius.

Camille brings a box of wine, and shares it between the lot, and still has one or two glasses for whoever pounces at the right moment.

Darius brings five sandwiches and gives them to A, B, C and E, and sometimes gives out the fifth but just as often wraps it up and goes home for a nap. Euphonia brings chocolate-covered strawberries and hand-feeds 'em to Brigid.

Zane brought a big bowl of potato salad that's pretty good, but most people are full up on brownies and sandwiches and don't want any. Zane sucks the dregs out of the wine box and staggers around hoping Darius is gonna hand out that fifth sandwich this month. Yvonne, Xavier, Wendell, and Violet turn up, but individually, and each decides that a slosh of wine and a giant serving of potato salad do not a potluck make and leave, wondering why Zane is there and why Abelard and Brigid posted ads for the place.

[mietze]

Pretty much this reminds me why I will never serve on any type of hospitality commitee like ever fucking again in my life.

[il-volpe]

@mietze Haha, yeah, screw committees. The last time I did something like that I just said, "I will do it all, give me the money," because that was easier.

[Derp]

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

Also, saying, "Bringing only four sandwiches and giving them only to the same four people every time is not cool," is not the same as telling you who you must give your sandwiches to. You can only bring as much as you can bring to the pot luck, nobody expects you to make it a hardship on yourself to bring something, nobody is saying your having only four sandwiches reflects badly on you.

So to summarize:

Nobody is saying that everyone has to play with everyone.

But you can't play with a limited number of people.

Except that you can absolutely play with a limited number of people if that's all the time you have.

It just can't be four people.

Except if those four people are the only ones you can play with.

What the hell are you even saying at this point? Because you're starting to contradict yourself now.

Is there some lower bound? Some theoretical limit at which 'not cool' and 'totally fine' diverge?

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

You're describing a situation where sandwich clubs are invisible and harmless.

Who anyone else is playing with and why is not any of your damn business. Therefore why does it matter who can see what?

[il-volpe]

@derp "not cool" != "you can't"

[Ganymede]

@il-volpe

Why is it not cool to play with folks you want to play with?

[il-volpe]

@ganymede It is. Shutting people out to do so is not cool. If your circumstances are such that you feel you must do so, so be it, but it's a pity.

[mietze]

I guess ultimately what I don't understand is why you'd want to play with people that don't want to play with you, and how you think that forcing people to do so will improve your experience.

I can see trying to incentivize subgroups and cliques to interact (ive seen that done in interesting ways) as well as trying to make things friendly for newer folks but.

I can think of little that is more repulsive to me than feeling like I must stay at a scene/place where people are actively resenting my presence. I just could not.