@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*.
@faraday said:
I've had some experience managing these types of themes, but I'm looking for other peoples' insights. What's worked well, what hasn't?
I can only go with anecdotal evidence, but I think @Sovereign has a point there. If you want to allow PCs to come in "that have always been there," creating a roster of the extant population by concept might work.
@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.
@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.
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.
@Sovereign said:
But people don't behave optimally; incentives are nice, but no guarantee.
This is also true.
@Sovereign said:
Exclusion is never the optimal strategy.
Unless you want to hoard power and are able to do so. In which case, "exclusion" also includes "including people in your RP so that you can crush their skulls in."
My bad: I edited my post.
Requiem for Kingsmouth's policies made it directly beneficial to be friendly. Of course, being friendly doesn't pay, but, there you are. It came to a point where just about any vampire PC that spent some time socially could own and hold territory, and could thereby become a political pawn/mover if they wished. @lordbelh nearly took over the entire game by carefully choosing his allies (like me).
@Sovereign said:
People are social creatures, and social exclusion is a common weapon.
This holds true if you do not enact policies or systems that turn social exclusion into a direct detriment and/or social inclusion as a direct benefit. The difference between real life and a MU* is that you can do this on a MU*. As @Misadventure points out, this can be done.
While I concur that people often feel wanted due to their own actions or those of other people, it is under-whelmingly simplistic to not include cultural or societal expectations into an evaluation of fixing what might be a problem.
If you're going to run a Vampire: the Requiem game, for instance, paranoia and power-mongering are essential to the theme and setting, and, very often, players have to bend over backwards to find a reason to be inclusive.
@tragedyjones said:
So anyone working on anything?
Plugging away on my Mass Effect system, actually. It kind of sucks when you're the only author, but I wanted substantial control over how it would go down. Then again, when it is your ambition to describe all of the bloody powers and statuses, it can be time-consuming.
I'll need people to play-test the shit out of it, though. I got a sneaky suspicion that Turians and Krogan are going to be the overwhelming favorites.
@Bobotron said:
What is it with rural areas and weird birds/animals?
People want to live with all of the conveniences of society without the inconveniences of having to accede to the reasonable wishes of the majority. In short, assholes abound.
I'd be interested. I'm looking to expand my horizons.
Did you know that many states have licensing and permit requirements for ATVs?
Might want to look into that. Nothing will discourage that little shit more than a juvenile record.
@Arkandel said:
Now - this is where it gets tricky - say they're having fun with it. In fact it's gaining popularity compared to the mainstream game purpose, more players are getting into that than chasing bank robbers or avenging kidnapped kids. What do you do?
How is this tricky?
If this part of the game runs contrary to what staff wants or expects, staff has three choices: (1) eliminate it; (2) accept it as a whole; or (3) compromise. Whatever is selected is indicative of how strong staff is or was attached to their theme and setting. This is wholly dependent on who is staff.
Personally, I think the crime-angle is interesting and would accept it. If the new players brought a campy Batman or He-Man element, though, fuck them in the face.
@mietze said:
I think when I really honestly feel unwanted/unwelcome, it's a sure sign that I am very burnt out and spent. This is a fairly new revelation for me.
You also need to understand that some of us want you to be around more, and get very sad when you are not.
In the past decade, I can honestly say that I, as a player, have never felt unwanted. Some people do not want my PC around for one reason or another, but that has nothing to do with me as a player.
I think it is important to understand the distinction between avoiding a player and avoiding a PC. I think problems arise when players create a PC that is a fantasy extension of themselves, and then feel as if the rejection of the PC is a rejection of them. That's a fallacy.
Then again, if your fantasy-extension is really fucking annoying, it kind of says a little bit about the player. At least, that's what my judgmental-self would conclude, unless it is somehow obvious that the PC is intended to be comical or satirical.
@thebird said:
I find my PB first, and build a character based on what/who they look like, to me. I'm an artist and super visual, so maybe that's part of it. I've been told that's very backwards.
My thought-process is similar, save that I find my PB after I decide on what sort of character concept I want to play. So, I determine the concept, find the PB, and then start building. For example, for my KD PC, I selected the concept of "Captain of the Guard," picked Mads MIkkelsen from Valhalla Rising, and then built the PC based on what I wanted to play and how I wanted him to look.
@Thenomain said:
Can you make an Alice game where the players are not fishmalks, without it being Just Another Faerie Tale Land.
If this is a challenge, I'd accept it.
I would start with the Wiki. I would refer everyone there. I would then inundate the game with scenes to start with to show the players what I would like. Hopefully, they could run with that.
Nothing too different, I guess.
@Thenomain said:
Alice in Wonderland can be read without the satire element, for example, and legitimately so, so how would you enforce the satire and fucked-up nature of a theoretical AiW game?
I'm not sure you can reconcile both. Satire is satire: a calculated ribbing of some particular trope. Fucked-up shit sort of implies going off of the rails of any trope or purpose. To enforce satire, though, I think you are very much limited to heavy staff RP involvement.