New Comic/Superhero Themed MU*
-
@Arkandel said:
Your fallacy here is assuming you have a group of mature, intelligent people able to work with each other.
...and as my experience on Reno taught me, you really need to have all three. This isn't one of those 'two out of the three is fine' situations. You need all three, and you need a fourth on top: it needs to stay that way.
This is why it's more or less doomed, unfortunately.
A group that can't come to a consensus, or that simply steamrolls members of the group or ignores their input, will create the the very uncharming paradox of utter chaos and major stagnation at once.
It is not good.
-
It feels to me like the vision of a perfectly-run place that's fair to all, no drama or strife, and so on is just that: a vision.
The places that have great RP, competent staff, mature players, and little drama are few and far between. I think it's a reason the vast majority of MU*s out there have a relatively short shelf life.
I once staffed on a couple places years ago, and I vowed to never do it again. As important as good staffers are to a place, it's way too easy to fall into the usual traps of human nature when it comes to who you associate with, who you like, who you don't like, and so on. At times all the stuff behind the scenes made it harder to just have fun in general RP, and if there's not an inherent wariness of staffers in general from some people, there are others who can and will try to abuse your time when they figure out who you play and who your staffbit is. That can be solved with making a clear distinction between your staffbit and your characters, but it doesn't always work.
There was once someone I knew who wanted to open his or her own place and this person asked me to staff. S/he (because I have no idea) said a lot of the same stuff: "I don't want to repeat the mistakes the other places make. I want us to be fair. I don't want us to play any favoritism, no special perks just because we're staff, etc." Who was the first person to use the "Well, I'll play so-and-so because I'm staff. I just need you to give the approved stamp to it so it looks legit" excuse? One guess, and I chose not to stay there long after that.
I've come around to the idea that staffers are probably entitled to certain perks, such as certain characters if they want them, but with that comes a responsibility to actually play those characters more than once or twice a month. If squatting is bad from general players, staffers doing it is much worse because it sends a bad message to everyone else. Staffers need to set the right example, not the wrong one, and for the time and effort they presumably put into a place, they do deserve a benefit or two as long as it's not being abused. From my experience, however, that's rarely the case.
A place that's run kind of like a dictatorship by one or two people can work and have longevity, but like I said above that seems to be the exception to the norm. These days I'm just on a place to have fun and hopefully make some friends within the context of the game, IC and OOC. I don't need the drama, and if and when a place reaches the point that it's no longer fun or worth it to stick around, I'm ready to try another one.
I just think someone who wants to start a game should be honest about the pros and cons of it, the tendencies of basic human nature when it comes to cliques, favorites, personal perks and so on, and simply do their best to work with that instead of trying to prevent it from happening at all.
-
I am personally for it. Even if things don't work out exactly as planned and shit happens at least the intention to try and not let things be the way things are on so many mu*s is there, which I appreciate.
I say go for it. The worst that can happen is that things don't work out. But you'll never know if it'll succeed or not unless you try, right? Let me know when this is up and I'll definitely come check it out.
-
No one is saying "don't do it". But there are a lot of people with a lot of experience simply pointing out that @Entropy's claim of "how it's going to be" is unrealistic, and thus there should be a lot of expectations heavily managed.
-
There's no such thing as a "perfectly-ran" place. There're only "perfect-ran place from where I stand" games.
I've been in MU* where I had RP flowing right in my direction others were leaving for lack of things to do. Recently even, Eldritch stands out. Sometimes the stars align, sometimes you get to sit on your thumbs.
Think of MSB's most designated shithole of a game - TR/FC. Even when I was there with drama explosions everywhere there were people the shitstorms simply didn't happen to touch who thought it was all a great collaborative experience, because from their points of view it totally was.
-
I get that no one was. I was just trying to be encouraging. It's kind of my shtick.
I also do get that there's no such thing as 'perfectly ran' mu*s. But like I said, I appreciate the intention. That alone is enough to make me want to give the game a try.
-
@Entropy I think what you want is very admirable, and it's something most people would generally enjoy. I'd also be extremely surprised if you got any firm commitments in private messages offering to help or do anything for you.
I don't mean to say that to be discouraging. But I think if you want to build an ideal game, the hard reality is that you probably are going to need to do all the work and not so fun stuff yourself. If you want to launch a sandbox with almost no code, you can do that, but then in order to sell the game and make it popular and people will want to play there, you have to be such a good storyteller that people log in there to participate and give it a shot, and you have to go through the work of building an RP community yourself. Once it's established, people will be rolling in and you'd have to be the one still to then preserve the positive community you created. So you'll have a massive amount of work in building that great community, and then once people see it is great, you damned well will have a crazy amount of work in maintaining it. If you are selfless enough to say, 'I'm willing to devote a year or two of all my free time to make this work', people will love you.
But they probably won't help you.
-
I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.
But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.
I'm not saying things like "there will be no perks for staff because fairness!" or that everything will be all rainbow unicorn farts on staff side because we'll all get along and all that. But I do think that it's possible to have a staff that is mature enough to work together to make sure some of these major pitfalls that happen commonly in games just don't become the same overwhelming serial problems that they often do. Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game. Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".
In the end, I have received a few responses offering to help staff and run things, as well as do some building. I've got enough stuff tinkering around in my head to draw up a bunch of theme and a world setting. Really I just need a game setup and a coder or two.
-
@Entropy said:
I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.
But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.
I'm not saying things like "there will be no perks for staff because fairness!" or that everything will be all rainbow unicorn farts on staff side because we'll all get along and all that. But I do think that it's possible to have a staff that is mature enough to work together to make sure some of these major pitfalls that happen commonly in games just don't become the same overwhelming serial problems that they often do. Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game. Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".
In the end, I have received a few responses offering to help staff and run things, as well as do some building. I've got enough stuff tinkering around in my head to draw up a bunch of theme and a world setting. Really I just need a game setup and a coder or two.
Best of luck. I don't believe that a game that is based on 'not like that' can successfully be what it is you're looking for. You need to be based on 'this is what I will be like, and this is how I'm going to do it'. I see 'we won't have these bad staffers and common pitfalls!' and no evidence whatsoever that you've any hope of actually accomplishing these things.
-
@Entropy said:
I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.
But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.
Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game.
Here's the thing: you can do that, and obviously that is what one should do and what I'd do and what every sane staffer ever has known needs to be done, but that is absolutely zero guarantee of the result you're hoping for. Why? Because staff behaving badly are not the sole cause of trouble on a game. Bad players are the other side of that coin. And a bad player may still not be satisfied with that outcome, or may be convinced there's something shady going on behind the scenes, or think Staffer A still made the call but Staffer C just signed their name to it, or Staffer C is just Staffer A's lapdog, etc. -- and said player decides to tell everyone with ears exactly this. They may scream and kick up a fuss, demanding they will never get fair treatment so long as Staffer A is staff at all for any number of reasons from the reasonable to the ridiculous.
You cannot overlook this source of strife. As someone who went through more or less exactly the above for months of genuine insanity, I can tell you from first hand experience, this player is as common as the actually malicious shady staffer is -- but they are equally toxic to the environment of your game.
You keep focusing on 'good staff', but you can actually have good, ethical staff, and still encounter these problems, these accusations, and a whole pile of completely crazy bullshit that's just as unreasonable and broadly damaging as the Elsa example described above.
You need to be prepared for this, and accept the reality of it as something you will absolutely have to contend with -- and unfortunately I'm not really seeing any evidence that it's even a part of your understanding of the kinds of actual problems one can encounter as you're considering taking this all on. I'm not saying this to be a cunt here, I'm saying this because I know from experience that all the sincerity and transparency and honesty and good intentions and best practices in the world cannot prevent this or other problems from the player side from emerging.
If you are only looking at 'staff being a problem', you're only seeing half the picture.
Think of it as a math problem written on a page in front of you. Cover half the equation with your finger, and try to come up with the right answer, while missing half of the mechanics required to arrive at that answer. Maybe you can? But you're going to get a lot farther a lot faster if you're looking at the whole thing.
You need to look at the whole dynamic and you need to be realistic.
Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".
And some people are never satisfied until and unless they get their way, exactly. This is another area where you're going to have to get realistic and understand that sometimes it's staffer caprice, and other times, it's that the player asked for something that's completely batshit cray cray, because both things happen.
You talk about digging in on situations like the above, but in the example you've presented? We have one side of the story. We don't know what the app entailed. We don't know if it was asking for restricted or forbidden things. We don't know if special exceptions were being requested, if there were special criteria that needed to be met, and so on. We're just supposed to assume, I gather, that everything asked for was above board, and you can't do that as staff.
Is that a giant pain in the ass? Damn right, it is. But that's the reality on the ground, and it isn't so cut and dried as one might think.
-
@surreality said:
@Entropy said:
I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.
But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.
Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game.
Here's the thing: you can do that, and obviously that is what one should do and what I'd do and what every sane staffer ever has known needs to be done, but that is absolutely zero guarantee of the result you're hoping for. Why? Because staff behaving badly are not the sole cause of trouble on a game. Bad players are the other side of that coin. And a bad player may still not be satisfied with that outcome, or may be convinced there's something shady going on behind the scenes, or think Staffer A still made the call but Staffer C just signed their name to it, or Staffer C is just Staffer A's lapdog, etc. -- and said player decides to tell everyone with ears exactly this. They may scream and kick up a fuss, demanding they will never get fair treatment so long as Staffer A is staff at all for any number of reasons from the reasonable to the ridiculous.
You cannot overlook this source of strife. As someone who went through more or less exactly the above for months of genuine insanity, I can tell you from first hand experience, this player is as common as the actually malicious shady staffer is -- but they are equally toxic to the environment of your game.
You keep focusing on 'good staff', but you can actually have good, ethical staff, and still encounter these problems, these accusations, and a whole pile of completely crazy bullshit that's just as unreasonable and broadly damaging as the Elsa example described above.
You need to be prepared for this, and accept the reality of it as something you will absolutely have to contend with -- and unfortunately I'm not really seeing any evidence that it's even a part of your understanding of the kinds of actual problems one can encounter as you're considering taking this all on. I'm not saying this to be a cunt here, I'm saying this because I know from experience that all the sincerity and transparency and honesty and good intentions and best practices in the world cannot prevent this or other problems from the player side from emerging.
If you are only looking at 'staff being a problem', you're only seeing half the picture.
Think of it as a math problem written on a page in front of you. Cover half the equation with your finger, and try to come up with the right answer, while missing half of the mechanics required to arrive at that answer. Maybe you can? But you're going to get a lot farther a lot faster if you're looking at the whole thing.
You need to look at the whole dynamic and you need to be realistic.
Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".
And some people are never satisfied until and unless they get their way, exactly. This is another area where you're going to have to get realistic and understand that sometimes it's staffer caprice, and other times, it's that the player asked for something that's completely batshit cray cray, because both things happen.
You talk about digging in on situations like the above, but in the example you've presented? We have one side of the story. We don't know what the app entailed. We don't know if it was asking for restricted or forbidden things. We don't know if special exceptions were being requested, if there were special criteria that needed to be met, and so on. We're just supposed to assume, I gather, that everything asked for was above board, and you can't do that as staff.
Is that a giant pain in the ass? Damn right, it is. But that's the reality on the ground, and it isn't so cut and dried as one might think.
I actually do take into account the idea of problem players. Part of the reason that I've stated that I'd want to do a comic based MU* was because I find a more (generally speaking) positive playerbase on these games than I do on the WoD and Cyberpunk/Shadowrun based games that I've been on. They're not perfect, and there is definitely some cray cray out there. I realize this. And if that player in the example was requesting something retarded, then it's the job of the staffers to realize that. Having a dialogue and discussing the issue doesn't mean that the player is going to get their way. It just means that people aren't going to be just shut down arbitrarily.
I speak mostly about the staff side of things because I feel that a competent staff can handle the problem of the player side of the equation. And because I'm not here to just talk about this utopian theoretical game, but asking for people who feel that they can be mature and work with a team to follow the expectations that I'm laying out. Those expectations aren't "I need you to be totally cool with everyone", or "I need you to give the players anything they desire". Those expectations are "Don't be an asshat", and "If you have a problem with someone pass that person off to someone else" and lastly, "If you shut something down and the player tries to make a clear point of why it should be, then hear them out and consider it, rather than taking umbrage that they dared question you".
I don't really think that these are unrealistic expectations to have.
-
@Entropy said:
@surreality said:
@Entropy said:
I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.
But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.
Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game.
Here's the thing: you can do that, and obviously that is what one should do and what I'd do and what every sane staffer ever has known needs to be done, but that is absolutely zero guarantee of the result you're hoping for. Why? Because staff behaving badly are not the sole cause of trouble on a game. Bad players are the other side of that coin. And a bad player may still not be satisfied with that outcome, or may be convinced there's something shady going on behind the scenes, or think Staffer A still made the call but Staffer C just signed their name to it, or Staffer C is just Staffer A's lapdog, etc. -- and said player decides to tell everyone with ears exactly this. They may scream and kick up a fuss, demanding they will never get fair treatment so long as Staffer A is staff at all for any number of reasons from the reasonable to the ridiculous.
You cannot overlook this source of strife. As someone who went through more or less exactly the above for months of genuine insanity, I can tell you from first hand experience, this player is as common as the actually malicious shady staffer is -- but they are equally toxic to the environment of your game.
You keep focusing on 'good staff', but you can actually have good, ethical staff, and still encounter these problems, these accusations, and a whole pile of completely crazy bullshit that's just as unreasonable and broadly damaging as the Elsa example described above.
You need to be prepared for this, and accept the reality of it as something you will absolutely have to contend with -- and unfortunately I'm not really seeing any evidence that it's even a part of your understanding of the kinds of actual problems one can encounter as you're considering taking this all on. I'm not saying this to be a cunt here, I'm saying this because I know from experience that all the sincerity and transparency and honesty and good intentions and best practices in the world cannot prevent this or other problems from the player side from emerging.
If you are only looking at 'staff being a problem', you're only seeing half the picture.
Think of it as a math problem written on a page in front of you. Cover half the equation with your finger, and try to come up with the right answer, while missing half of the mechanics required to arrive at that answer. Maybe you can? But you're going to get a lot farther a lot faster if you're looking at the whole thing.
You need to look at the whole dynamic and you need to be realistic.
Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".
And some people are never satisfied until and unless they get their way, exactly. This is another area where you're going to have to get realistic and understand that sometimes it's staffer caprice, and other times, it's that the player asked for something that's completely batshit cray cray, because both things happen.
You talk about digging in on situations like the above, but in the example you've presented? We have one side of the story. We don't know what the app entailed. We don't know if it was asking for restricted or forbidden things. We don't know if special exceptions were being requested, if there were special criteria that needed to be met, and so on. We're just supposed to assume, I gather, that everything asked for was above board, and you can't do that as staff.
Is that a giant pain in the ass? Damn right, it is. But that's the reality on the ground, and it isn't so cut and dried as one might think.
I actually do take into account the idea of problem players. Part of the reason that I've stated that I'd want to do a comic based MU* was because I find a more (generally speaking) positive playerbase on these games than I do on the WoD and Cyberpunk/Shadowrun based games that I've been on. They're not perfect, and there is definitely some cray cray out there. I realize this. And if that player in the example was requesting something retarded, then it's the job of the staffers to realize that. Having a dialogue and discussing the issue doesn't mean that the player is going to get their way. It just means that people aren't going to be just shut down arbitrarily.
I speak mostly about the staff side of things because I feel that a competent staff can handle the problem of the player side of the equation. And because I'm not here to just talk about this utopian theoretical game, but asking for people who feel that they can be mature and work with a team to follow the expectations that I'm laying out. Those expectations aren't "I need you to be totally cool with everyone", or "I need you to give the players anything they desire". Those expectations are "Don't be an asshat", and "If you have a problem with someone pass that person off to someone else" and lastly, "If you shut something down and the player tries to make a clear point of why it should be, then hear them out and consider it, rather than taking umbrage that they dared question you".
I don't really think that these are unrealistic expectations to have.
What I'm essentially telling you is that the examples of behavior you're describing are the behaviors I've seen staff broadly exhibit -- and I mean the good examples.
They don't head off the problems at the pass the way it seems you expect them to, is the thing. What you're describing is standard practice at every game I've ever staffed on, going back to the 90s. It really is. I haven't been everywhere, obviously -- but there's nothing remotely revolutionary there. All of those games still had problems, and they had them because those aren't solutions...weren't.
Believe me when I say I wish they were, because reasonably they should be, but that's assuming everyone is being reasonable.
ETA: Gah, damn cough meds and edits and meh.
-
This post is deleted! -
I get all of that. And I'm not expecting any sort of problem free environment. Again, I'm not naive. I don't expect to do the impossible. I'm literally just looking to give a group of players that I see with a lot of good people a place to play that is not run by a batshit tyrant. If I could, I'd happily just open BNW2, for example, and keep everything the same, but without the dictator. That's not possible, so I'm just wanting to do the next best thing.... provide an alternative/haven for those players who are less than satisfied but stick around for the other players.
-
You are missing the point. Do you seriously think any of these other games don't have the asshat standard? Don't have ethical expectations?
-
I want to open a game with no standards, no expectations beyond you'll be treated like shit by staff.
At least that way we'll be honest.
-
@Entropy said:
I get all of that. And I'm not expecting any sort of problem free environment. Again, I'm not naive. I don't expect to do the impossible. I'm literally just looking to give a group of players that I see with a lot of good people a place to play that is not run by a batshit tyrant. If I could, I'd happily just open BNW2, for example, and keep everything the same, but without the dictator. That's not possible, so I'm just wanting to do the next best thing.... provide an alternative/haven for those players who are less than satisfied but stick around for the other players.
Your goals are noble but you're focusing on them rather than on the means to achieve them. In doing so you're making assumptions such as having access to an inexhaustible pool of staff players who are emotionally stable, active, competent and get along with each other.
These factors can be present, yes, but rarely all at the same time. The nature of the job is that it wears you down; it's not lofty aspirations and good intentions we run out of, it's patience.
Think of a MUSH as an instance of Ship of Theseus - you know, you keep changing parts when they wear out until none of the original ones remain, so in the end is it the same ship? In our games the grind staff faces is tough and endless, so once attrition sets in so and everyone who started out is gone is that still the same game? A Dictator, for better or worse, provides a sense of continuity, of an original promise still kept. Nearly any given M* which has survived more than a year has done so because a person - or very small group of them - stayed at the top in charge of a rotating cast of administrators, and that's for a reason.
Which isn't to say having a Dictator is a panacea. Boy, hah, no. But it's easier to find certain qualities in 1-3 people than to expect them in a whole lot more than that, and over time to boot.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel said:
Your goals are noble but you're focusing on them rather than on the means to achieve them.
This.
Do not worry of fairness. Someone will accuse you of being unfair. Maybe you are, and maybe you aren't, but it is largely situational. Further, it is more important to have a fair outcome than to be a fair person.
Many of us have been down this road before. There is a large difference between being fair and acting fair. The first is a matter of perception; the second is a matter of judgment.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
EDIT: In case it needs to be said, I am in agreement with @Ganymede and @Arkandel but quoted what I felt needed to be agreed with.
@Ganymede said:
@Arkandel said:
Your goals are noble but you're focusing on them rather than on the means to achieve them.
This.
Do not worry of fairness. Someone will accuse you of being unfair. Maybe you are, and maybe you aren't, but it is largely situational. Further, it is more important to have a fair outcome than to be a fair person.
Many of us have been down this road before. There is a large difference between being fair and acting fair. The first is a matter of perception; the second is a matter of judgment.
When you are in the position of building a game, you can either build what you want, or what you think players will want. Personally building what I think players will want has always been a soul sucking experience because the 'players' want stuff that isn't good for them, the game, or the story.
Any good GM/ST/DM has to be able and willing to say 'No.' or games will rapidly fall apart, a MU* is no different, in fact with the number of players that a MU* can acquire it'll probably fall apart even faster than a table top would become monty haul.
Sometimes monty haul is awesome fun, if everyone is into it, but when it comes to game decisions trying to rule by committee... or democracy... I have never seen end well.
Have a vision. Build it. Make it what you want and people will either play and enjoy it, or they won't, but at least you're being true to yourself, and having fun making a game you love.
-
Alright, look. I get what you're trying to say. I'm going to try to make this as clear as I possibly can, because I've tried to say this a few times now and it seems to go over people's heads. I am not looking to create a Utopian gaming experience. I know that it is impossible. I think you are all focusing too much on one thing that I have stated as a desire and blowing it out of proportion into this big idealistic thing that you have to try to shut down. It's not that.
I say I want a game where people can be fair, because I am looking to run a game, where I am fair. I'm looking to be the headstaff of this game, as I am willing to create the world from the ground up. I have a small handful of people that are with me, and want to see this happen as well. These are all people that I know well, and are of a similar mindset to me.
As a headstaffer, sure, I would be the final word, but with it being me, and me knowing myself, I know that I am the kind of person who is willing to listen to the advice of others, and I am able to consider other viewpoints other than my own. Something that I observe lacking from other places. The reasons for that lack may be many and varied, but it still happens and it causes a lot of people to turn away from games, and sometimes the hobby itself.
This translates to the comments I made about how one person won't have the final word. That means that myself, and the people I am looking to work with, are all of the understanding that if a problem arises, we are capable of being mature adults of discussing it among ourselves in order to examine the decisions that were made and why. As well as the reasons for the opposing viewpoint. This does not equate to a sunshine and rainbows view where everyone gets everything they want, or that the players get everything they ask for. This means nothing more than the fact that real consideration is given to both the requests and the reasons behind the request. After that, the decision is whatever it is. But at least it was considered.
In the end, it comes down to this. I have the ideas. I have the people. We have the stories. I have builders, and plotters, and creative folks around me already pitching in. The only thing I need is some people to help turn all this into something tangible. Whether or not people think the game will succeed, based on assumptions of naïveté, is a whole other matter, and inconsequential at this point in time. If the game fails, then it fails. In the end, the only thing I can say is that I am going to try, and that I know that in trying, I will do what I intend to do. I will be a staffer who isn't obsessed with controlling every aspect of the game, or someone who makes the game just a playpen for their buddies, but gives everyone an equal chance to tell the stories they want to tell and have fun doing so. I will provide a place where, even if your voice isn't heeded, you're at least heard.
Right now, I have everything I need to make it happen, with the exception of someone to help me set it up and get it going, and someone to do some minor coding for a few features I'd like to see implemented. That's it. I understand that some people might think certain things about my noble intentions, and all that, but that's not what this thread is about. The thread is about whether or not there are people who are willing and able to help me with these two last pieces of the puzzle to make this game happen.
