Feelings of not being wanted...

[Arkandel]

@Sovereign said:

@Arkandel

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

I think so -but @Roz's post covers my answer as well.

I've seen (and sometimes but not always have been part of) groups doing their own thing on the side. It's usually when they have at least one active ST with a story to tell for them so they have a strong internal theme running.

So there are different layers of exclusion to consider. In this case 'outsiders' aren't going to be necessarily invited in, even though I don't think I've ever seen that happen - sooner or later there are crossovers, new romantic interests, etc to blend the lines of who's part of the group or not. But then again that doesn't mean the group isn't interacting with the game in general, participating in its metaplot, diversifying its interests by reaching out to make connections outside of itself.

So it's up to you (the generic 'you' that is) to decide if that's a clique, and if so, whether it's detrimental to the game due to its internal insider-only access to certain resources and plot devices. In other words if being a clique is an undesired formation or if it's a building block of like-minded individuals with a strong identity.

[Ghost]

@faraday said:

@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.

I don't mind a clique that only RPs with each other so long as that clique isn't in some way kind of taking over the game. Again with the SerenityMush references, but this applies. The "Space Pirate" faction on SerenityMush was hideously out of canon. They also had staff support and were funneled all of the best weapons and armor from staff, and there was a lot of rules oversight. They got away with a lot of bullshit. So they became this highly exclusive faction that took on Sprogs, who were newbie characters in the faction that were PK-free bitch kids, cannon fodder, and packmules. People would join as sprogs because there was RP to be had, but there was a lot of risk/price to put on the line for joining the exclusive faction who got all of the special bonuses. Eventually, this Pirate Faction took over the game and were a standing stalemate element to every plot, could bully whoever they wanted to IC. When, due to RL issues between Mal, Inara, and Frost, the faction splintered and became stale, a lot of players were displaced.

If I were running a game I would owe it to the game to keep an eye on cliques. Within cliques can come a lot of under the table OOC communication and coordination on IC things, which is both meta-gamey and puts some risks on game balance. If the clique becomes popular, then it could become a force to be reckoned with and flip that switch from net positive to how do I get this under control without ending up on WORA very quickly.

[Misadventure]

Keep a map of who votes for whom. Or who shares a room.

Make a cool info graphic out of it.

[Sovereign]

A clique, at heart, is just a group of players that spends most of their time on one another. It's those five friends who make related concepts and RP with each other all the time in their corner. They aren't necessarily hurting anyone else, but they're not helping anyone else, either.

Those people are fine. No one is obligated to play with others, nor is exclusion a sin. If you want to play with Bob, Jimmy, Jackson and Eugenia, everyone else be damned, go wild. It's your time and your fun.

Now, the staff-facilitated cheapness and cheating @Ghost mentions, that is an issue.

[silentsophia]

@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.

Oh hell. I sympathize with that, too. I've had it happen. And the best one is this guy's wife who freaked out because my mage was in a room with her husband's character. IT WAS A SPACE MAGIC TEACHING SCENE, WOMAN.

[Thisnameistaken]

@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.

This is when you walk away. The moment a person lets someone else dictate who they may or may not RP with is the moment when I'm out. That speaks of crazy on an OOC level.

[Luna]

@Ghost I know you have. And I know you've gotten shit for stuff that was totally not your fault. I've seen that with some others too when I was active. I can't even give a solid example but a lot of times we aren't willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. We hear someone's a douche canoe and so we repeat it or cut them out without even a least a shred of evidence.

It all almost boils down to who's a dick. Is this person a dick? Yes but he or she is super popular and active! Hm. Are they really? Or are they just supported by other dicks who are super loud? Are they active getting stuff done or are they active in a circle jerk? It's kind of nuanced sometimes. In the end it seems that really it's the loud awful wheels who get the grease and it's off putting to others who would rather quietly bow out.

Yes, often these games have a level of social politics that go with them and shutting people out of things is a way to get ahead. So the whole clique thing is a tough call. We all have seen the complaints of 'I can't find rp'. We've likely almost all complained as well. I don't see many solutions presented to the problem though.

[Apos]

@Thenomain said:

@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.

I honestly don't think it is. I've done years of both and I do see some ooc communication as important, I really do prefer it being kept to a minimum. In one case I can think of a couple MU characters I played for a couple years and had frequent IC interactions and shared stories with other characters who I never once communicated ooc with their players and I think it wasn't in the least bit detrimental. The Reach was noticeably different where I had to usually talk to players beforehand, and I found it annoying and cumbersome and got in the way of RP and basically destroyed spontaneity. I think it made me significantly more reluctant to reach (hah) out to people for RP, which is relevant to the thread. If people prefer it, more power to them, but I don't see it as critical at all.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede

I take the issue to be like complaining about people who do nothing but TS. They are undesirable but on a low priority.

--

@Apos Still on phone didn't mean to miss your response. Like I said, I've never been on a game that eschewed the use of OOC and I likely never will be. I can't say anything about you feeling knocked out of immersion and that's too bad, but feeling unwanted for me is people walking out of RP.

--

Others: From light skimming it looks like a pedantic discussion of the word "clique". Faraday gets it. Context is not rocket science.

[Cirno]

@Thenomain said:

Others: From light skimming it looks like a pedantic discussion of the word "clique". Faraday gets it. Context is not rocket science.

Quibbling over semantics, I call it.

[Hella]

I am guilty of this on certain games. There are assholes I don't want to play with, and I'll tell others 'hey I will RP with you, and you can RP with them but don't bring my bidness near them/vice versa'. Inclusivity should be the starting motto, but for sanity's sake it doesn't have to be the only motto.

[Misadventure]

Maybe people should link to their played list here from their +finger on games.

[Hella]

Or start making lists of people they don't want to play with and post it up.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said:

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.

To be more precise, when I put a game together, I do so not just to facilitate others' fun but to run a game within the theme and setting that I've created. If you are not going to interact or engage in that theme and setting, then I really don't need you around.

For example, if I create a Star Trek game set on a particular starship on a particular mission, it is not unreasonable to mandate that each and every PC be a crew member whose focus is completing that mission. I have no interest in a PC or group of PCs whose players simply want to be crew members without any attachment to what's going on in the ship or the theme of the particular mission or set forth in the various information files.

I realize I sound very hypocritical since I generally play on WoD games which usually end up just being a monitored setting with no particular direction or theme.

[Apos]

@Ganymede said:

I realize I sound very hypocritical since I generally play on WoD games which usually end up just being a monitored setting with no particular direction or theme.

I didn't read it as hypocritical. Are many WoD games started with really big notions about a particular theme being enforced that they gradually relax and then ignore? I haven't played them enough to know if they followed a life cycle like that, but hadn't seen it in my experience.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Apos In WoD MU*s, theme is the first thing to go. Then you start to see an influx of extra 'red tape' or 'house rules' across spheres. Then the game starts to slowly break into smaller and smaller groups. Spheres or Families first.. then factions within those groups, then subfactions, etc. They inevitably get crushed under the weight of their own bullshit, but in the meantime its like being dragged across broken, dirty glass, slowly, with Hell as your final destination.

[Sovereign]

It never fails to amuse me how popular WoD MU*s are despite the WoD - Vampire, especially - being uniquely ill-suited for a MUSH.

[Ganymede]

@Sovereign said:

It never fails to amuse me how popular WoD MU*s are despite the WoD - Vampire, especially - being uniquely ill-suited for a MUSH.

Everyone keeps saying that, and Requiem for Kingsmouth serves as an example of how such a game can be tailored to a MU*.

[Miss Demeanor]

I think any single sphere WoD game has a decent shot at lasting. Its when trying to juggle multiple spheres that were never intended to be put into constant contact with one another meets the whiners of 'supers equality' that leads to even MORE house rules and red tape bureaucracy... that's when it starts to break down.

[Sovereign]

@Ganymede

You mean "incredibly poorly, kept afloat only through the inhuman efforts of a woman who treated it as a full-time job, and eventually couldn't do it anymore"? It's like crossing the Pacific in a raft. Even if you can, that doesn't make it good at it.