Feelings of not being wanted...

[Ghost]

@VulgarKitten Yeah, I dug what Webb was up to. Always thought it was a fucking shame so many players were trying to game the game on an OOC level. I should have forwarded the pages to staff.

[surreality]

@Apos Barging really isn't realistically a thing in public spaces. It's intended to prevent people from entering privately-owned builds, or temprooms, not prevent them from joining scenes on public areas of the grid.

The rest is predominantly a realization of the fact that most events on a game don't occur in real time, and real life sometimes prevents people from completing a scene in one sitting. There's mention, for instance, of how five minutes of game time could take hours -- or sometimes even days -- to type out or roll through if there's a large combat going on. It's not too uncommon for people to play from work or while otherwise occupied (there's a lot of talk about it in the random bitching thread recently) and taking really rather a long time to complete a scene that in IC time may only be a brief exchange, one that would be over by the time the other person arrived.

Time-skew can be pretty unavoidable without it glitching in one direction or the other; either the 5 minute exchange that takes 10 hours to type actually took 10 hours IC, or it's over before the additional person arrives, so neither setup is really a solution. It breaks reality any way you slice it, pretty much.

[Coin]

Some people get butthurt because you play with them, but then don't go out of your weay to invite them to a scene that is highly specific (say, an Embrace, or a First Change, or one of those). And they see you and other people (likely who are more tightly knit to your character's narrative than they) playing and ask "is there room for one more", but there really are enough people in the scene as it is and one more would be a slog (or disrupt the narrative; or be one too many for one or more people currently in the scene, or any other reasonable reason). So when you say "i think we're full up", suddenly you're an exclusionary jackass and the whole game is horrible, or something.

You know, perspective.

[Apos]

@surreality Yeah, for example, the game I played immediately on before the Reach had all private rooms as locked and inaccessible except strictly by IC means (so barging OOC was impossible) and there was a very clear consistency kept in all continuity. Things would never be broken up time wise, there would never be events or RP held that would be happening in the past, and there was never any kind of tempus fugit type jumps, and combat was fully automated so there typically wasn't any equivalent of time stops that would have thrown in time-skew. This is not praise/recommendation in any way for that style, just commentary of how jarring it is to go from that to something like WoD sandboxes.

[Ganymede]

@Ghost

I wish I had more time with Webb.

I was happy, at the end of The Reach, being Clarice. Nothing like a Winter-Mouse-Cop-Alcoholic to make people double-take.

[surreality]

@Apos I get what you're saying, definitely. I started on MOOs that were very similar to what you're describing. (Ghostwheel and Cybersphere, they had coded everything, and it was pretty neat.) It is a huge adjustment between the two.

The sandbox thing is more 'is there a metaplot' question than anything else; sandboxes are generally 'there's no metaplot, do whatever you want to do within reason' and there's not really any over-arching storyline for the game that's being led by the staff. TR wasn't a sandbox for a long time... then it was when the metaplot ended. I only got there after it ended, so I can't really compare the two in terms of experience.

[Ghost]

@Ganymede said:

@Ghost

I wish I had more time with Webb.

I was happy, at the end of The Reach, being Clarice. Nothing like a Winter-Mouse-Cop-Alcoholic to make people double-take.

Sounds so much fun. I'm sorry I missed rping with your character.

[Arkandel]

@Coin said:

You know, perspective.

There are also characters - not people - who would simply change a scene by their inclusion, and that's not the scene those there are looking to run.

Obvious examples: A non-supernatural (or 'wrong' supernatural) type in a scene full of people who're doing IC Masquerade-breaching things, sometimes it's annoying to have to talk cryptically and around what you actually want to be talking about. Or ... the scene's participants want to keep focus where it belongs - yes, it'd be awesome to get to witness a First Change and pose losing your shit but it's the other guy's only First Change ever and the roleplay should be about them. Unless they're okay about sharing the spotlight, let them have it.

... In retrospect we've come up with plenty of reasons why universal inclusion isn't always a black and white issue, heh.

[Thenomain]

@Sovereign said:

@Thenomain

All people have influence on your play experience; this is kind of the point.

This is true in the sense a butterfly in Mexico has an influence on Minnesotan weather. You can always find some link, some association of vaguely related events, but for the most part it's not true. I have been at many games over the years where most of the players had no influence on my play experience because of different spheres, different play times, or simply incompatible personalities that led to non-antagonistic but distant relationships.

That is why I specificed "... enough to be a detriment". There's a level of influence that matters and a level that does not.

As for becoming the problem, I don't think cliques are a problem. They're desirable. It's a game, it's my free time.. why wouldn't I want it spent on people I know are quality? I have no problems playing with the same people often, so long as I get along with them. The problem is when cliques take to social combat to diminish your experience.

On phone, no real keyboard, can only say this is full of crap. Cliques are exclusionary, play groups are not, you should have quoted-slash-read what I said in its own context instead of yours.

Everyone affects your role play directly. That is the point of social gaming. Directly includes the chance of detrimental, sorry that I took you as someone who could understand subtlety.

--

@Apos Fair enough, but I have never played on a game where ooc is bad. Nor am I likely to because ooc is critical for negotiating social contract. Hell of a lot better for someone to tell me they can't engage then trying for 10 minutes only to have characters walk out on my attempts.

--

@Arkandel Correction edit!! Fair enough but I want steak for dinner always but at least I want well prepared food. If I am having enough fun, then I don't feel like time wasted. If I'm not having any fun, that's too bad. At least I tried.

[Ghost]

To each their own, but on games filled with fragile egos and low self esteem cases with limited real-world social skills, I don't think one should rule out the empathetic, wishy-washy approach. You'd be amazed at how well some people will respond to you if you merely give them the impression you give a fuck what they think.

I don't mean this to sound sociopathic, but really I mean it to say that people are more inclined to work well and peacefully if they feel like the other side gives a fuck.

[ThatGuyThere]

About asking in public scenes to me it is a matter of politeness. I always ask when entering.
I don't think I have ever told someone no when they have enters d a public place. but I know if they ask I will have my character include them even id is folds and twists and mutilates my IC circumstances because hey we are all in the game together. If they do not act I don't, I simply react ICly sometimes they get involved because my character is outgoing or in a social mood sometimes if my char is down or just my nature more introverted they don't get talked to.
To me it is a matter of politeness more so then policy I think a rule forcing people to ask would be the height of unnecessary micro-management, but I see entering without asking as a minor rudeness, It can be over looked or over came with more interaction but its starting off on the wrong foot.

[Sovereign]

@Thenomain

Yeah, no. Not everyone is an influence and cliques are fine.

[Arkandel]

@Sovereign said:

@Thenomain

Yeah, no. Not everyone is an influence and cliques are fine.

I want someone to define for me what a 'clique' is in the context of either a MUSH or this conversation (or both).

Please.

[Sovereign]

@Arkandel

I was unaware the word's meaning was arcane. Is there something wrong with the dictionary definition?

[Roz]

This argument always comes down to people who think the definition of clique is just "people who hang together and do things together" and "people who hang and do things together and also exclude other people." You can find dictionary definitions to support both readings (whether the exclusionary nature is inherently implied by the word or whether it's just about a tight-knit group).

[faraday]

@Arkandel, I think the strict dictionary definition certainly applies in many cases (emphasis mine):

a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes

This is distinct from what I presume @Thenomain was referring to as "play groups", which would be a non-exclusive circle or group of persons.

Having a lot of cliques can be very detrimental to a game, since new players just throw up their hands and leave when they can't break into RP.

At the same time, I think cliques are a natural part of any social endeavor. And frankly, if I choose to log into a game just to play with Bob and Harry, who are my best buds from elseMU and we've got our own little plotline going on that doesn't readily open itself to strangers, that's my prerogative. It may be a DUMB prerogative because eventually we'll get bored playing with just each other or Bob will idle out and then our story will be up a creek, but it's still my prerogative.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said:

Having a lot of cliques can be very detrimental to a game, since new players just throw up their hands and leave when they can't break into RP.

@Derp and I had a discussion as to whether a non-inclusive clique with no influence and no desire for it is actually a detriment to a game. While we ultimately concluded that the influence would be minimal or nil, I asserted that such a group would also be pointless and, therefore, undesirable.

[Luna]

I've often felt unwanted. The worst thing though is 'I love RPing with you, but so and so hates you and will get super dramatic about it so I can't' Ph cool. Bad behavior rewarded. Awesome.

[Ghost]

@Luna said:

I've often felt unwanted. The worst thing though is 'I love RPing with you, but so and so hates you and will get super dramatic about it so I can't' Ph cool. Bad behavior rewarded. Awesome.

Ohfuck I sympathize so much. I've been there. So you're in a slightly or very abusive RP friendship/weird thing and thus I need to take the bullet?

Fuck that.

[faraday]

@Ganymede said:

@Derp and I had a discussion as to whether a non-inclusive clique with no influence and no desire for it is actually a detriment to a game. While we ultimately concluded that the influence would be minimal or nil, I asserted that such a group would also be pointless and, therefore, undesirable.

Well I said that it can be detrimental. It depends on what else is available on the game (to draw in new folks) and how influential the members of the clique are. For instance, if the small-town Sheriff, an important char, only ever RPs with Bob and Suzy, that might be a problem.

As for undesirable, it depends on what the point of your game is. If you build it so that players can log in and have fun, and those players are logging in and having fun - groovy.

Also, I rarely see a clique that never RPs with anyone else, so even if they mostly just RP with each other, there's still some net positive for the game as a whole.