The 100: The Mush
-
@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
If you don't like it, cool. Mark your disagreement politely and vote with your feet. But respect that staff is devoting their own time and money to running a game for the entertainment of others. That doesn't mean all others. It means others whose vision aligns with theirs.
this is where i disagree here, on games sure behave but off games trash them til your heart is content, the public will decide who is in the right if anyone, the answer is frequently no one but that is beside the point.
Staff does what they want on their own game and that is their right but places like this board exist for the reason for calling them out for it.
Other wise this board serves no purpose then an advertising venue.
I have no real side in this current argument but while if you don't like it leave is very good advise there is no reason not to express your opinions on the matter in places devoted to it. -
@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
If you don't like it, cool. Mark your disagreement politely and vote with your feet. But respect that staff is devoting their own time and money to running a game for the entertainment of others. That doesn't mean all others. It means others whose vision aligns with theirs.
I think this is a dangerous mentality to adhere to.
I think staff need to seriously consider complaints such as those raised here. While it is entirely possible that staff will not heed or change policy based on what is said, I think it is important for staff to question whether they are catering to those who share their vision, or whether their vision is slowly becoming that which others are projecting on the game.
After all, there was once a time when the NRA was concerned with safe gun use and storage practices, rather than obstructionist lobbying.
“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.
-
Sure, but shrieking bloody murder over a personal preference is ridiculous, and while trashing places is the thing, the expectation that folks who ARE having fun should just shut up is also ridiculous.
-
I feel like the 'Game sucks' and 'Game is awesome' sides have been pretty evenly split here, and even in being kind of annoying about their positions in spots. So that's as even-handed as a debate on the Internet gets, I guess. To me it indicates all the stuff in this thread should be taken with a big grain of salt, but it's probably valuable if I ever wander back.
My own experience on the game wasn't terrible and I think it has potential once it gets beyond the initial high-intensity growth spurt, but it wasn't my thing at this exact moment (in large part because of the 'playing angsty teenagers' things, but that doesn't mean anyone I encountered was playing them horribly). Which is a very uninteresting opinion, I know. So it goes.
-
@Ganymede said in The 100: The Mush:
I think this is a dangerous mentality to adhere to.
How is being polite and respectful a dangerous mentality to adhere to? I never said people didn't have a right to complain, or that staff shouldn't consider the complaints objectively and decide if there's truly a problem here. But ultimately staff decides what kind of environment they want to have.
-
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:
My own experience on the game wasn't terrible and I think it has potential once it gets beyond the initial high-intensity growth spurt, but it wasn't my thing at this exact moment (in large part because of the 'playing angsty teenagers' things, but that doesn't mean anyone I encountered was playing them horribly). Which is a very uninteresting opinion, I know. So it goes.
In fairness, we are now at a point in the game where "angsty teenagers" is not the only option available. We have adult Grounders and I expect probably adult Skaikru within the next month.
-
@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:
Sure, but shrieking bloody murder over a personal preference is ridiculous, and while trashing places is the thing, the expectation that folks who ARE having fun should just shut up is also ridiculous.
I have never said anyone should shut up.
But literally every abuse ever on a game can be covered under their court so leave an don't complain.
I am in favor of the clashing arguments provide both sides to the readers and let the readers choose.
So far I think the defenders of the game are doing a fine job, and staff seems for the most part to be well meaning, but I fuly endorse those who are making the complaints having the ability to make them.
Now If I was staff I would ask for this thread to be moved out of advertising so they could put up an new ad and have this go to a discussion section but that is more housekeeping then anything else. -
@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
@Ganymede said in The 100: The Mush:
I think this is a dangerous mentality to adhere to.
How is being polite and respectful a dangerous mentality to adhere to? I never said people didn't have a right to complain, or that staff shouldn't consider the complaints objectively and decide if there's truly a problem here. But ultimately staff decides what kind of environment they want to have.
Because the phrase "voice complaints politely and respectfully" or sentiment along those lines is used as polite short hand for "shut the hell up" often enough that many people will default to reading it as such.
-
This post is deleted! -
@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
How is being polite and respectful a dangerous mentality to adhere to?
That's not what I was objecting to. What you described was a situation where staff adopted a dangerous mentality: "I will devote my free time only to those players who share my vision of this game."
It makes sense superficially, but it's dangerous in practice. If those players manipulate the vision of the game, then staff are no longer serving that vision; rather, staff are serving those players. This is how the Ham Clique worked; this is how Spider gets into positions of power.
When people complain, they ought to be listened to. Reasonable, mature people can discern the difference between a legitimate concern and griping. Presuming that, the cacophony about the pervasive IC antagonism as a cause to drive players out should draw some attention. Maybe the IC antagonism is what the staff want, and that's fine, but what if the players who "follow the vision" change their preferences? Will the staff agree and shift away from IC antagonism?
Then you get a game where staff are catering to the "loyal." You get concerns about upsetting the "pillars" of the game. Then the game no longer belongs to staff; it belongs to the players. And that's not as good a thing as it sounds.
Edited to improve conclusion and clarify:
Staff should devote their free time and money to maintaining their vision of the game. Players will come and go. Serve the game.
“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.
-
@Ganymede said in The 100: The Mush:
@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
How is being polite and respectful a dangerous mentality to adhere to?
That's not what I was objecting to. What you described was a situation where staff adopted a dangerous mentality: "I will devote my free time only to those players who share my vision of this game."
It makes sense superficially, but it's dangerous in practice. If those players manipulate the vision of the game, then staff are no longer serving that vision; rather, staff are serving those players. This is how the Ham Clique worked; this is how Spider gets into positions of power.
I realize this is going to possibly open me up to all sorts of scorn, but I have to say I'm confused. When you log into a game, isn't it with the expectation of playing within the theme, ie the vision that the staffers have put into play? Which again may return to my question of whether or not dispensing plot to non-proactive people makes any sense, or why it's bad to respond to those who choose to be proactive.
Personally I log in to play "The 100" and I think the only time I would try to sway the theme of the game is if I felt the game was going wildly off thematic track. And if it was, there's certainly ways to approach staff civilly about it. I'm not trying to build a cult of personality, which to me smacks more of what the aforementioned clique and the likes of Spider are prone to do.
My character is proactive. I built her to be so, and I've been playing her as politically ambitious and she's made her way into a position of having some credit with her fellow Delinquents. I don't know if this makes me part of the antagonistic or "favored" folk, but I'm happy to RP with pretty much anyone, and I try to weather check when I feel like I may have come across unintentionally antagonistic OOCly (more often than not people assure me I haven't, but since it's happened to me so often in my mushing history, I'm going to keep checking.)
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical -
Age old question in art ... who decides its meaning?
For public art, its somewhere in the middle, the artist and the viewer, each with their own background. Once it goes up an artist accepts they have some control but can't make everyone see it they way they intended.
If a Mu* is open to public (letting other players join Edit: Advertising and Recruiting in public forums), then players may validly express an opinion. Its certainly acceptable for them to voice concern with how a game promoting itself publically and trying to draw in new players seems to be steering itself. Its certainly acceptable for staff to disagree.
There is a difference between staff recruiting players that only wish to play one way (the term is over used here, but staff sandboxing) versus accepting players with different visions and direction.
Personally, I've always enjoyed when RP seemed to steer off course from anything I ever intend. Simply because it shows creativity and a vestment in the game and theme by those players; short of the point that those players dominate the direction for everyone.
-
@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:
When you log into a game, isn't it with the expectation of playing within the theme, i.e. the vision that the staffers have put into play?
Yes, unless the theme described by the staffers is not the same as the theme they are actually cultivating. That is a completely different aside.
I am not suggesting that staff dispense plot to non-active players or not dispense plot to the pro-active players. That's not in my analysis because that's not what I'm getting at.
What I am trying to communicate is that it is a dangerous mentality for staff to cater to any group of players. While there is an expectation for staff to work with players, staff should be expected to cater to the game.
Let's take your suggestion and play it out. Suppose the theme of the game is going wildly off-track. Suppose you go to staff and point this out, and they were to respond that they are catering to the players who are pro-active and working with them. This seems sensible, but remember that the game is going off-theme; you know it, others know it, but staff are not doing anything about it. Because they are catering to the players.
It's not about a cult of personality. That's not precisely how Spider or the Ham Clique worked. They inculcated others -- specifically staff -- into catering to them because they were active, creating other activity, and cooperating. They appear to be your best players. They become staff to simply help out with mundane jobs. And then, you cannot afford to shake loose of them because all of the plots are tied to them, all of your remaining players are their friends, and they are essentially running your game. That isn't forming a cult of personality; it is the equivalent of a hostile takeover.
Don't cater to the players. Never cater to the players when it comes to your theme and setting. Protect the game. Keep your eye on the game.
-
I think my only concern (and I believe that I've been very clear) is that when there's an attitude of "if you don't enjoy what I'm doing right now it's because you just can't handle the awesome play I do and just want tea and cake," that is something that does not benefit the game oocly ever. I don't see there have been terrible awful screams about anything going on there. I asked some questions and offered comment that if there is feedback about antagonism there's a possibility that it's more ooc scene hogging or overexposure by that one person who perhaps got frustrated because they wanted other experiences as well but for whatever reason didn't feel like they could. Given that the attitude quickly turned towards "omfg you hate conflict!" even though that seemed to be not at all what players who'd left were saying, I now totally understand why perhaps they intuited that asking around for less personal targeting for antagonism was something that would be fruitless or get them put in the pansy category. (And as I said also, this is a sort of usually unintentional dynamic I've seen very often with antagonistic rp, which is why I suggested keeping ooc tabs on it /if/ there was feedback from multiple sources that it was getting difficult to deal with.)
I do not think playing on an antagonistic themed game means that it should be forbidden to say "this is good but I'd like some other opportunities too, who is friendly to that, so that I can enjoy the antagonism that remains," without being labeled a pansy who hates IC antagonism. It doesn't sound like the creators intended the game to be that way either?
But often times any discussion of this kind of thing gets shut down by either side deciding that any "maybe watch out for this" comment constitutes someone saying "omg no antagonism/protagonist allowed!!!" I am sorry if my comments inflamed that, I did attempt to be very careful to separate out IC RP from ooc environment slippage and not being willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.
-
@Ominous IIRC the Martin, Fiona, Samson scene was good, except I had to deal with one guy who wanted to beat the shit out of Martin for no good reason at all. Then get uppity and vanish... but yeah without the person I was going to play the game with, tacked onto everything else... I lost interest fast.
@everyoneelse:
I don't think the game itself is bad, I don't even think the majority of the players are bad or antagonistic.
I think the antagonistic assholes are to dominant, and to involved in things, that it chases away people who are there to play in a post apocalyptic environment that don't generally want to be dealing with angst ridden assholes.
Not the game for me. That's fine. Not going to whine about it but I'm equally not going to say that everything is fucking sunshine and roses either.
On this forum especially people should be able to handle some criticism and rough reviews.
-
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:
I feel like the 'Game sucks' and 'Game is awesome' sides have been pretty evenly split here, and even in being kind of annoying about their positions in spots.
Chalk me up for the former category. I couldn't even get out of chargen before bailing.
-
@Warma-Sheen said in The 100: The Mush:
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:
I feel like the 'Game sucks' and 'Game is awesome' sides have been pretty evenly split here, and even in being kind of annoying about their positions in spots.
Chalk me up for the former category. I couldn't even get out of chargen before bailing.
That seems less an issue with the RP and more something else.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@Ominous said in The 100: The Mush:
@Warma-Sheen said in The 100: The Mush:
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:
I feel like the 'Game sucks' and 'Game is awesome' sides have been pretty evenly split here, and even in being kind of annoying about their positions in spots.
Chalk me up for the former category. I couldn't even get out of chargen before bailing.
That seems less an issue with the RP and more something else.
Such as not liking the theme? Or not liking Faraday's code? Or having the attention span of a gnat? Nah, must be the game.
-
@TNP said in The 100: The Mush:
Such as not liking the theme? Or not liking Faraday's code? Or having the attention span of a gnat? Nah, must be the game.
That's fine. I was just curious as much of the recent conversation has been problems players have had, and you didn't even make it to the point of being a player.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@Ominous said in The 100: The Mush:
@TNP said in The 100: The Mush:
Such as not liking the theme? Or not liking Faraday's code? Or having the attention span of a gnat? Nah, must be the game.
That's fine. I was just curious as much of the recent conversation has been problems players have had, and you didn't even make it to the point of being a player.
You've got the wrong person.
