Right-o. I tend to just find mortals as the boring step required to play something cooler. I'd much rather be Spike than Xander (that's right, gauntlet, thrown).
Is the desire not to have other supernatural types available for application to avoid the WOD sphere "issues"?
I'm always down for the supernatural, yo.
Question: would you require everyone to play something supernatural, or have people play "mortals" or what?
I'm reminded of an old AOL game that was a fairly fun supernatural setting, but everyone had to start with a mortal and then alt-in a supernatural (or get changed into something supernatural) -- and that was a bit annoying because most people wanted to be supernaturals, though there was a rather perma-mortal and proud group.
@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"?
@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:
@GirlCalledBlu
That may be true, but I am sure am not alone in wondering just how much that is worth.
Officially supported but against staff preference can mean a world of different things in this hobby.
You may be sincere but given what history has to show, (by this i mean of MU*s in general, nothing about you whom I know nothing about) I would not blame anyone for doubting.
I don't blame anyone for doubting, guess that just means I have a lot to prove if that happens.
The reason I have that as a stated preference is because of what feedback we got from those who played the other 100 MUSH: it splintered fast and aggressively (edited because I do not know how to proof posts, haha). RP was so spread out, the story arc either ended up being like too little butter spread over too much bread or ended up only getting to the most proactive group and left the others in isolation in their tiny camps in the forests. Neither of those sound sustainable for this particular type of game.
@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:
@GirlCalledBlu
But it has been stated in the thread that the leader is a staff alt, that makes the arguments that it is not a players not being railroaded seem a bit disingenuous.
This keeps getting brought up, and I feel like it has been responded to, but I'll say it again: there is no defined leader of the camp. In fact, I'd say "the leader" changes from day to day, situation to situation. Some characters go to Grey -- said Staff alt -- for stuff, but he isn't the leader. There is no PC leader because that structure is left up to the characters to figure out.
I'll leave it up to @Seraphim73 to add more if he wishes to discuss his character, but I'm going to continue to stress that there is no defined leader of the delinquent camp.
@ThatGuyThere I've stated my preference, but did say that I will support groups that do splinter.
While I was writing this post up, a friend of mine challenged me to think about how I define clique, and I have been using the term kind of loosely for "any group who plays primarily with each other." But, she pointed out that, that is probably not how it is being used in this particular thread.
So, for the purpose of this discussion:
Clique = exclusive group that does not include others in plot-based RP, keeping plot hooks to their "group" and generally trying to dominate the plot.
Playgroup = group of people who play together based on availability, interests, and general "Hey, I like RPing with you," but not exclusive as defined as a clique.
While I prefer that characters don't splinter off into their own mini-groups/tribes that separate them from the IC Locations, I understand that this may happen (i.e. a small group deciding to go off and create their own mini-camp outside the main delinquent camp). If that does happen, Staff will have to work to bring those splinter groups into the main story arc.
Because splinter groups promote exclusive cliquishness, I would prefer that the RP remain centralized. It is easier for playgroups to interact if they are all in the same IC location and forced to work together. But, I understand that splinters might happen, and I'll do my best to make sure there's some support system in place for those groups.
As I have been sitting here, ruminating on this, I think my best response now is to just be more deliberate on how story is being disseminated to the player base. Proactive players tend to end up as frequent participants in plots, but that does end up punishing players who have limited schedules, struggling to find opportunities, or just feeling like they end up missing the hook entirely.
As lame as this might be to some, thanks to those who have been open to me contacting them privately or them contacting me privately to help me see exactly what people are talking about concerning the cliquishness. Since my personal definition of "clique" wasn't meshing with what was being discussed here, I wasn't really able to see what people were talking about.
I do now, so thanks. I'm sorry to those who felt I was being irritatingly obtuse.
@Ghost said in Survival/Apocalypse Genre Survivability:
I don't play "100", but are there a lot of characters with super-useful skillets despite being teenagers?
Yes, but this is primarily because the theme sets it up that way. On the Ark (where the teenagers came from), there is already a need for macro-level survival (to use Faraday's words). The Ark is the unification of 12 space stations that pooled their resources to survive the ~300 years needed for the planet to no longer being irradiated.
So, teenagers aren't just expected to lay about being teenagers. They end up in apprenticeships as early as 12 working on particular jobs needed on the space station (often based on what their family already does). So, you have teenagers that are mini-botanists, -doctors, -mechanics, -hydro farmers, -computer engineers, etc. You even have guard cadets who have the combat training in firearms, warcraft, etc.
Most everyone that has come on the grid, unless they were boxed/jailed before their apprenticeships got anywhere (i.e. the second child app that was boxed at age 12), most have a beginner's to intermediate skill level of their particular skill set. This sets them up for being able to at least figure shit out even if they aren't as skilled as their adult counterparts up in the sky.
Survival/Apocalypse genres require more storytelling, from my limited perspective of 5 weeks actually running one. Having participated on other survival-style/apocalypse games, I have found trouble getting integrated into the game because I wasn't part of a group app (to fit that micro-survival). So, I would come in, alone, with no one else to integrate with, and end up phasing out after a couple weeks because there was no way to get footing or my character on track (even after reaching out OOCly to see if I could become a new cling-on for an already established group).
In my opinion, there's two basic sub-genres in the Survival/Apocalypse genre:
Waking Up to Chaos: this is your classic zombie scenario where everyone wakes up in the morning to find their world in total chaos because of some world-changing event. You have to grab whatever shit you can carry and find some people to survive with and then run away as fast as you can from the source of the apocalypse. I guess, @faraday would call this "micro survival."
Post-Apocalyptic/Societal Recovery: this is more in line with themes like The 100 (to some extent, though I think that theme has some of #1 in it, too, particularly from the Ark perspective), Defiance, The Postman, Mad Max... This is where the bad apocalypse is already happened, and the world's landscape has totally changed both physically and culturally. You have a variety of societies that are vastly different from "Earth Norm," and there isn't a lot of happiness or stability, and the world is generally unkind. So you have larger groups (even whole societies) just trying to survive while being in a harsh world surrounded by harsh societies.
Do I think that these types of genres can support a game longterm? Don't know. I think that once the metaplot is over, you end up with more of a sandbox game where people run their own stories and plots, and maybe split into groups. You end up with a more "typical" game where you have a setting, theme, factions, and players are more or less responsible for their own storytelling with a passive staff helping them along.
I'm not going to put up a post that asks people to stop being IC assholes. I believe it is not my place as a Staffer to make people change their characters unless they are directly going against theme.
BUT...
I have zero tolerance for OOC assholes, manipulators, aggressors, threateners, harassers and any other OOC bullies you can think of.
So, while I'm certainly not going to put up a post asking people to stop being IC assholes, I'll certainly put up a post asking people to let us know when someone is an OOC asshole.
Unless we've already got an OOC problem player on that we have already talked to and warned about their behavior, we do not snoop, set people suspect, or spy on OOC conversations (or IC ones for that matter). If there is OOC conflict happening and we aren't seeing it or it isn't being brought to our attention, we have no idea it is going on. We want/need people to bring these issues to our attention if they are happening, because I can't imagine a Staff who would just be cool with people being OOC jerks to one another.
Here's my deal: I don't feel comfortable as a Staffer to demand that a player change their character's personality for any reason. That's not my job, nor my place. I can't imagine how I would feel if a Staffer paged me and went: So, you're character is really too cheerful, and people really are finding your cheer grating when they RP with you. Could you be less cheerful? (Yes, I used a different emotion on purpose).
I personally would feel awful, and question whether I wanted to stay on the game because Staff felt it was their job to demand I change/tone down my character's motivations/personality (particularly after they approved my character knowing she was particularly cheerful).
The only time I feel that Staff is in the right having that conversation is concerning Features, where personality and character traits should be captured properly. Otherwise, the best Staff can do is offer situations/hooks that might motivate my character to be less cheerful (like, I don't know... watching her best friend die).
But, as I said before that, I have major issues with OOC aggression and antagonism because that's what drives off players/kills a game faster than IC jerks and assholes.
@Miss-Demeanor said in The 100: The Mush:
I don't think you quite get it
You're right, I don't. But I'm trying to.
Alright, so I'm just putting this out there: if there is something going on, on The 100 MUSH that is impacting your ability to have fun there, I invite you to send me a PM on this forum. You can then tell me the situation in detail, provide examples/names, and then I can actually get a better grasp on what is going on beyond "too antagonistic." My perspective may be skewed, and I acknowledge that.
I feel like there is something I have missed beyond "there was just too much PC vs PC tension for me" because it sounds a lot deeper than that. Rather than letting it just go on ignored, I would much rather have people get out all their complaints so I can try to do something about it. And yes, I know, people have said things here, and yes, I will go back and reread everything, but I feel like there's some "I don't want to name names, but..." and that can be hard for me to parse.
I know some of you have moved on and left the game, so you might be giving me info that is "outdated," or maybe you've been following the game via the WIKI and have noticed trends.
Thanks in advance to those willing to do so.
@Arkandel said in The 100: The Mush:
True, but unthemely isn't the same thing as commonly acceptable ICly.
And it shouldn't be.
If the PCs don't bring down the consequences, I have no problem with using Staff NPCs to deliver consequences to my own PC because I know that Grey and Gideon having a relationship is not going to promote her status in the Grounders, and is bound to be a source of scorn in the Delinquents. I'd probably have Orion or Draco (if he's up to it) run that NPC because shunning myself feels strange... (shrugs)
But, I already have PCs promising to punish Gideon, so I'm content. 
Because this is ultimately a place to advertise for the game:
GROUNDER APPLICATIONS ARE NOW OPEN: With a tentative ceasefire called between the delinquent camp and the nearest Grounder village of Coesbur, the two peoples are beginning to interact in ways that do not always include violence. With the Grounders no longer the anonymous enemy, the delinquents are starting to realize the intricate nature of the ground's long survivors, and just how different -- and how aggressive -- the world has transformed the human race.
But, a ceasefire with one village does not mean a ceasefire with all. Soon the delinquents will learn the exact expanse of the Trikru nation, and that -- no matter where they turn -- politics and law still follow them.
@Ominous Then I definitely hope slowing things down will help give people more time to connect with the story. And honestly, I think if I don't slow down, I'll burn myself out and then that would be bad. I'm feeling it after two major RP nights almost in a row!
Or I'm just really starting to get old. 
@Ominous and @ixokai (missed your response before I clicked submit)
An extremely fair observation/complaint we've gotten. We are slowing things down in response (edit: and providing more downtime for less fly-by-your-pants RP). While the first season of the show takes place over 21 days, doesn't mean we have to try to cram everything we possibly can in, in the same amount of time.
Hopefully that will help.
@Admiral said in The 100: The Mush:
Mary Sue/Gary Stu
The type of character archetype that will never go extinct. They are like tardigrades.
@Admiral said in The 100: The Mush:
My friend's words, here. "Since they removed most of the canon characters, it's like they replaced Clarke, Bellamy, and Finn with his character."
I would really like to find ways to refute that, but I feel like the whole "The Wife" thing makes any attempts moot. If he wants to defend himself, or counter, or whatever, he can.
I guess all I can say is... who the hell would want to be Clarke?
I am listening, thank you. But I felt the need to correct you because your evidence was faulty. Nastily saying that our characters had influential political marriages is false, and I have no idea how to approach being accused of using Staff NPCs to funnel plots to characters like it is a bad thing.
Has Grey been in a lot of scenes? Yeah, and I think he acknowledged that. But, is he the central character? Uh, no. Quantity of participation does not equate absolute influence (edited to include the word absolute). Characters who have made significant impact on the direction of the story so far by their actions through RP and requests and their interactions with Staff NPCs:
Cameron
Morgan
Cookie
Cole
Fiona
Faolan
Quinn
Devin
Ruth
Grey
Characters who are impacting the story through their interpersonal relationships with other characters who are not already in the list above:
Cassandra
Thomas
Max
Niner
Asher
Silas
Martin
Frankie
Silver
Evie
I'm sure there are others, and I hope they realize that me forgetting of them is not a slight.
I'm a storytelling-based Staffer. I don't seek to create games just to give people sandboxes to play in. I'm there to tell a story -- so yes, The Husband has been in a lot of scenes The Wife is running, but I am in charge of this story arc, so I'm running a lot of scenes and naturally he's going to be participating in the story -- and why shouldn't he? If he wasn't a staffer, he'd still be in those scenes. If he wasn't a staffer, he'd still be throwing himself out for RP. If he's not running the scene, why does it matter that he's there to participate, and participate at the same level as other PCs?
The thing that bothers me about the ire here is that there's some misplaced assumption that Staffers are not allowed to participate in the games they run. Most Staffers become Staff because they play the game, and play it well, and are recognized. Doesn't mean they suddenly stop playing their characters when they become Staff. And most people who create MUSHes tend to want to play in the game they create, otherwise why create it?
There are plenty of games out there that are run by a private group of people who don't invite others in because they want to play their little games without having to deal with anonymous issues. Obviously that's not why I created this game with Draco and @Seraphim73, because if that was my intention, I'm pretty sure I'd just go RP in a Google Doc with some close knit friends and play out my The 100 fantasy stories there.
Being Staff is hard, and not always fun, and definitely makes you the focus of ire if you mess anything up, but I like telling stories with people. I told stories with you, @Ghost, on 5W and you sure didn't seem to mind it when your character was given special scenes with NPCs or particular highlights. So, whatever chapped your ass in 5W is a total mystery to me based on the stories you participated in and were invited to participate in.
I do what I can, and I think I do it pretty well in the long run. Do I probably fuck it up sometimes? Well, gosh darn, I sure do, but I also think that I try to be pretty damn transparent when I do fuck it all up.
But, I'm here to tell stories about and with my characters too, just like everyone else who comes to the game. And I make it my weekly goal to find at least one character to throw a story hook to -- sometimes big, sometimes small. If @Seraphim73 is a bad player because he participates in RP and joins in on scenes, and generally tries to engage in the story, well then shoot my ovaries, bummer for him. But he's not doing anything any other active player isn't doing on that game -- which is show up and RP.
So if the game doesn't fit you, or you had a bad experience on 5W (which I'm pretty smart enough to know that some people did, because never has there been a game that makes everyone crow), that's fine. And if people are really upset that PCs whose players are Staffers participate in story, I think that they definitely are never going to like playing on a game where I Staff, and probably would be happier somewhere else where Staff either flat out lie which characters are theirs to hide their participation (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill) or just always play NPCs.
Just to nail it home: Yup. Staffers have PCs on The 100, and yeah, they RP with others and participate in story, and aren't just background characters. If that's a problem, then I have no idea why anyone would want to be Staff to begin with. I'd give up being a Staffer before I gave up being a Player.
And just to make @Admiral happy: Come play The 100 MUSH. Frankie almost has her moonshine still in full operation, so underage drinking is incoming!
@Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:
multiple heir/house power structure marriages between your two CHARS
ROFL. Omg. I wasn't going to respond because honestly... anonymous ire totally never chaps my ass...
But, this...
So, I say... come again?
Say what you want about how we used Staff NPCs to funnel plot to characters, because I'm pretty sure people are like "Dude, I think most games do that, isn't that what Staff NPCs are for?" But...
Come on, dude. Don't be hating unless you're gonna hate with grace.
Also, just as another note: Luck points matter. If you're in a fight, KO, and don't have Luck to stand back up, and no one comes to your aid? You'll probably get coup de grace'd. This is noted in Combat 101 (here: http://the100.wikidot.com/combat-101 "If a character is KOed by an enemy, and that enemy is not engaged by someone else, the enemy may Pass its action and finish the KOed character off in the next round."
Note the uses of the word "may." This really is where IC action can dictate what happens next.