The 100: The Mush

Monogram

It is entirely possible that a second community will form made up of former Ark inhabitants that have chosen not to live under the new government. There are characters who are devoted to this idea, some who ride the middle, and others who are opposed either just in terms of their choice or as to what everyone should be doing. My own PC is still in "wait and see" mode, since the new laws have not been revealed yet. She doesn't know if they're going to be better or worse than what she's accustomed to.

And if that ends up hurting the game overall? Because then you would have three locations of RP that are now spread out across the grid. The Ark, the Grounder village, and whatever location these anti-Ark characters want. IC decisions or not, there has to come a point where OOC management of the game has to trump IC desires. Especially if everyone sees that the decision to break off has had a negative effect on the game as a whole. It will not only be up to staff to correct this possible outcome, but also on the players to understand that while it might be what their characters want, are they really willing to bring the game down as a whole because of it?

Even if I played a character that was like that(and to some extent, my character is)/I/, being me the player, wouldn't allow my character to go in that direction because when it comes to what I want as a player, I'm willing to sacrafice that desire as a player to make sure that the game keeps operating smoothly and everyone is integrated in what plot development or RP that's out there. Splitting up limits this, regardless of the IC justifications for it. It's small price to pay. For me, at least.

TNP

Morgan does want to set up a separate community to live apart from the Ark. And if it's feasible, he'll do it. But it's up to me to come up with reasons to interact with the main group and the Grounders as well. That's kind of what he wants in fact, to be a go between between the two groups. Cameron having his dad still alive is an easy excuse to maintain ties with the Ark.

Cupcake

@Monogram: Let's be honest, there's no single answer that's going to make everybody happy.

Option 1: Fall in line with the Ark, for better or for worse.
Option 2: Split off, form a separate community that will likely have to deal with both Trikru and Skaikru.
Option 3: Fall in line with the Ark with the intention of changing it from the inside.
Option 4: Joining the Ark community via force.

Option 1 takes away a level of IC choice that isn't realistic to expect.

Option 2 spreads out RP, but one of the primary points of this theme is that you can't expect to survive alone. Those that make this choice need to understand the potential of what they're getting into, a realm of "make your own fun" and speaking only for myself, if my character made this choice, I'd still have her encouraging contact and trade and interaction with the other groups. It might be a harder path, but as long as we're not splintering into a half dozen tiny gangs, it might be doable.

Option 3 is an RP challenge with lots of possibilities. Whether it's a slow burn effort to create political change or an internal rebellion. It's certainly a high risk notion but entirely feasible if PCs make the right moves. If it was understood on the OOC level that this is a viable possibility in which the story could go, it might persuade people to stay in a cohesive faction, but that depends on how you weigh commitment to story versus commitment to character.

Option 4 is much like Option 3, and may also involve driving the theme in new directions in which staff and some players might not want to go. It involves not just an OOC willingness to place one's character in a specific direction, but to also allow them to be placed in a vulnerable state which not everyone likes. There's a point at which being in what ICly feels like a despairing/hopeless situation can be a loss of enjoyment for some RPers, and it's hard to measure against how much hope and enablement to accomplish their goals to provide as a storyteller.

These are a few of the possible scenarios when it comes to addressing the population movement of the game, the Delinquents in particular.

Edited for redundancy

Monogram

@Cupcake
You can point out as many options as you want, but as long as any of them carry the risk of bringing the RP down, it's not a risk I personally am willing to take. And I will say that your options are not all bad, and really any one of them could work and I'm just being paranoid because I've seen games I like crash and burn because the RP got spread out so thin, things stopped happening and eventually, players drift away and the game dies.

Like I said, there has to come a point for every player when they have to decide what's more important: their character's desires or the well being of the game.

Lithium

@Monogram You don't get to decide what brings the RP 'down' for everyone who plays though. Different people have different likes, dislikes, wants, and desires.

My character wanted nothing more than to find some smart people, and get the hell away from all the violent sociopaths to create a farming agrarian society of their own.

Still think it would have been awesome RP building our own society and such, trying to keep it alive..

Cupcake

@Monogram: An argument can be made for any option to be bad for the game and risk bringing RP down. All it takes is for someone(s) to decide they don't like it and choose to abandon ship. My point is that all of these options (including the one you're concerned about) have potential for remaining inclusive to RP depending on how we as players choose to approach them.

Monogram

@Lithium I'm not. I'm only listing my own personal concerns, nothing more than that. I'm not trying to play judge or anything like that.

And I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Hell, I /want/ to be proven wrong. This is just borne from previous experience, nothing more.

Ganymede

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

People are supposed to not play bitchy/assholey characters on a game full of delinquent teenage PCs, because some people would like more IC conscientious characters?

One should expect a game of teenage experience to contain plenty of bitches and assholes. That's why I have no interest playing here.

I play the Game of Lawyers in real life, and let me tell you whut --

Kestrel

@Monogram said in The 100: The Mush:

@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:
Even if I played a character that was like that(and to some extent, my character is)/I/, being me the player, wouldn't allow my character to go in that direction because when it comes to what I want as a player, I'm willing to sacrafice that desire as a player to make sure that the game keeps operating smoothly and everyone is integrated in what plot development or RP that's out there. Splitting up limits this, regardless of the IC justifications for it. It's small price to pay. For me, at least.

Why are you assuming, if you are assuming, that this is what anti-Ark players actually OOCly intend? (And @Cupcake for that matter.)

Also, hi, @Ghost. (And @Kanye-Qwest.) Since you asked: I'm the one who downvoted that post about how staff should encourage splinter-factions. I think it's a terrible idea that will do the game no good, for all the reasons @Monogram and @GirlCalledBlu stated.

I want to say that I play one of the three most vocal Rebel characters in-game. She's frequently made her anti-Ark stance clear, and has voiced support both privately and publicly for the idea of a splinter-faction that will go off and do their own thing. Despite this, let me make it clear that I have no intention of actually doing so, OOC.

And here's the rub, and is what really grates my cheese the most about this thread. IC conflict is important. It provides challenges and obstacles for characters (and their society as a whole) to deal with. It provides opportunities for character growth. When my character ends up doing something nice, changing her mind about something or slowly warming up to people, I like to think that they find it surprising, refreshing and rewarding, but they wouldn't get that if she was nice all the time. But instead of dealing with these things IC — or just ignoring it and finding someone else to play with, YMMV — people insist on taking it OOC and making it a big issue where it actually might not be. This is exactly what is meant by WrongFun attitude. Moreover, we are burning bridges before they have been crossed through fear-mongering. No one has actually tried to seriously PvP anyone, even if they've said 'I will cut you, bro.' No one has actually tried to go off to form a splinter-faction and divide the playerbase. These players are standing right in front of you, willing to engage. It is your choice not to engage them because you're nervous about imagined OOC intentions. When shit actually hits the fan? Panic then rather than flinging shit at it yourself.

There has been more antagonism in this thread than I have experienced in-game. I do not find a character falsely accusing mine of murder and trying to sic a mob-justice execution on her OOCly stressful. That was some of the most fun I've had in game. I am not even stressed that my character recently cracked her skull. But this attitude, these tea-cup storms, this drama — legitimately, so far, this has been the only thing about this game that has made me want to quit, along with a few conversations in pages about the subject by people who insist on foreseeing doom and gloom. A lot of the posters in this thread are being plain nasty. I doubt some are more than trolls sour over whatever happened over in 5W, a game I did not play. I respect your right to feel the things you're feeling and voice your criticisms of the game, but less so when you use your personal preferences as an excuse to lambast those who differ and are having fun.

To those of you who think I'm an arsehole for the fact that I enjoy playing an antagonist who starts IC conflict, I say this: I think you're arseholes for your snap-judgements and needless OOC aggression towards players and dedicated staff who do their very best to try and make everyone happy providing this kind of fun for others, in their spare time. We're even. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Monogram

@Kestrel said in The 100: The Mush:

Why are you assuming, if you are assuming, that this is what anti-Ark players actually OOCly intend? (And @Cupcake for that matter.)

I wouldn't say it's an assumption, but nobody seems to be really hiding that the fact that that's what they want to do. From what I've heard(which could be completely incorrect). And if I'm wrong, I have no issue with someone pointing out just how wrong I am.

Kanye Qwest

@Kestrel A totally valid downvote reason! Sorry.

I was going to upvote this post, in fact, until you said a thread on the MSB was making you want to quit the game. You can't fight drama with drama.

ThatGuyThere

@Kestrel
One thing I think you forget is that this place basically exists for bitching. Granted in current form it is far more constructive then past edition but it is still the offspring of WORA.
So yes most conversation here is in the negative it is most likely going to be like that for any game.
To address another point , you mentioned waiting until shit hits the fan to panic, while that is likely good advice you are also new to the MUSH side of things, a few (dozen) pages back i mentioned how grudges get carried over, but they are not the only things that do. People's experiences do as well, I would wager that those losing shit prematurely likely have been burned a few times in the past and are gun shy now. That is a normal reaction take a dog that gets mistreated and it takes a lot of work to accept that new people won't do the same. This is a basic animal reaction, and regardless of how we like to think we are advanced or above in most cases humans make the basic animal reactions to things.

Ganymede

@Kanye-Qwest said in The 100: The Mush:

You can't fight drama with drama.

This isn't drama. This is bad comedy, Starscream.

Miss Demeanor

@faraday Poor example. This isn't people wanting to play on Hoth intead of Tattoine. This is people not wanting to play in that alien-controlled terribad settlement ON Tattoine and instead wanting to go play out in the sand. Since the game has yet to even introduce the Mountain Men, if they can't handle a splinter group going off into the woods, they're doomed regardless. Given that the show itself branches out FROM the settlement, if there was never any intention of allowing for movement outside the settlement, I'll bet a LOT of players are going to be disappointed. This is a setting that both encouraged and cautioned people wandering about on their own. 'Go ahead, but Explore At Your Own Risk'

@GirlCalledBlu I can appreciate that you want to keep things centralized, but it sounds like most of the plot is STILL being centered only around the most proactive people, which doesn't lend much credence to your worries. If plot already largely stays within a set group, wringing your hands and saying 'but if they leave, the plot will only go to this group that's already getting the majority of the RP' doesn't mean a whole lot to those people already feeling left out. At least if they splinter, they can be off on their own without being made to feel they HAVE to contribute to a society that gives nothing back in return.

@Monogram You know what else can keep a game going? Disseminating plot points to as many people as possible through means OTHER than simply being in the previous plot scene or having to interact with someone they may have already received poor treatment from. This was a thing that was brought up on TR. People complained about getting no plot. So staff started making general bbposts and announcements letting their spheres know about stuff that was happening. When people continued to whine about no plot, staff was able to point to the posts and announcements and say 'it was made public, you could have put in a request, you could have asked for a scene, this is what we explicitly offered in these posts'. It didn't stop the complaints, obviously, but it gave everyone equal OPPORTUNITY to join.

Keep in mind, I've made my choice. There is nothing on earth that could entice me back to this game. I've lost any faith in the staff that I had. But I also recognize that others may not have made quite such final decisions. If this game is ever going to be more than a sandbox for the people already there and involved, then the wants, opinions, and suggestions of others need to be given weight and credit. Otherwise, just call it a goddamn sandbox so nobody mistakes it for anything else.

GirlCalledBlu

@Miss-Demeanor said in The 100: The Mush:

Otherwise, just call it a goddamn sandbox so nobody mistakes it for anything else.

Just because I'm thinking my definition of a sandbox isn't the same as yours, how are you defining "sandbox"?

mietze

I struggle to understand why, in a situation where a group feels cut off from staff plot by actions of other PCs (which can be observed by staff), why splintering off into an even smaller group would help the situation. Most staff meta or -run plot is finite and not targeted to any particular player group (though it may end up looking like that through the player laziness scenario or plot hoarders). Very few people are going to have the capacity to run staff plot for every single subgroup aside from what they originally planned for. Yes it could happen, but is it likely? Or more likely to encourage the feeling of rejection when the main plot keeps moving forward but the splinters have even less access to it because of isolation?

mietze

I mean yes in theory people should be able to do whatever they wish and believe would be IC, but expectation management is key. and if people already feel wronged by mistreatment it may set them up for echo chamber stuff (see? We still aren't getting anything because we are the undesirables!) as much as the "la la la can't hear you I'm just better at hardcore play than you" people do.

Coin

There is also the problem of patience.

Most people do not have any, when it comes to feeling left out. So if a staffer who runs shit for everyone is currently concentrating on a specific plot that a specific group is the center of, someone outside of the plot will complain that they want plot too, but if it isn't given to them relatively soon, the conclusion they draw is that it never will.

As a storyteller, I like to tell stories from beginning to end and not start a shitload of things and then never end them, so it ends up looking like I am focusing on one group to the exclusion of others... because I am... at the moment.

And it's fucking annoying.

Miss Demeanor

@GirlCalledBlu A sandbox, in this case, would mean a game that is meant to cater largely to the people running it, and their friends/RP buddies' preferences.

An open, public game is just that. Its open to -everyone-, and should be run as such (to the best of staff's ability/as much as the theme of the game itself will allow).

If the theme of your game is so strictly enforced to be not just accepting of, but encouraging of IC behavior that is likely to drive people away from the game, or keep them from joining in the first place? Then you're running a sandbox advertising itself as an open game.

Mind, I don't knock either type of game, I've been part of both types... but the sandbox games were very clearly marked as such, with clear warnings that certain types of behavior would be prevalent, or at least common enough that not everyone may be interested in it.

Given that your advertisement says that its okay if you haven't seen the show, I suspect you mean to run an open game. HOWEVER, given how openly antagonistic the show is towards its own characters, you may want to caveat that the game has a higher than usual level of IC PVP/antagonism to be found. It can be shocking to someone new to a theme if they aren't prepared for what that theme entails. Lord knows it was a shock to me, especially since I'd had assurances that PVP was NOT being pushed on anyone, then immediately had every scene with at least one person deriding or maligning my character. Often for little more than offering a dissenting opinion from the popular one that seemed largely derived from OOC excitement to push the plot of the show forward quickly.

mietze

I can understand that, @Coin. Though to be honest with you, given the propensity for start-bright-burn-out-quickly activity on games (especially for STs I've noticed), I do think that feeds into the antsy-ness of the playerbase, because realistically if they do wait for 2 months (reasonable amount of time IMO given the changing MUSHing community from people with no lives/minimal commitments to normal to hectic RLs), will that staffer even be around and active after that? It is annoying though if people are told "yes, you are in line" and they're not willing to give it time, or when people constantly IC and OOC bellyache about having no method for involvement even though there are bbposts/chan invites/personal @mails sent, ect. But I do think that there is a bit of horde of locust mentality on games right now. You see it in the SWARM SWARM SWARM to the NEW THING at game openings pushing things along before they're ready (though I've also noticed that being planned for a little better now), people do it with plotstuff too. Not really sure how to solve it. Other than my current strategy of giving any place I make the commitment to try 3 months of me being a friendly, active participant before writing it off (or unless 3 ugly ooc events that aren't just some crazy psycho troll that's quickly taken care of by staff inform me about the likely game culture/staff culture.) I do think that 3 months can be an eternity to people though, especially those that want intense play but have little time, so they need to maximize their bang for their time investment.