Posts made by L. B. Heuschkel

@pyrephox said in Battling FOMO (any game):

And then...time passes. And no one asks for RP. And the little voice goes, "Oh. OH. So I was bothering people, and no one actually enjoys playing with me. That sucks. Now I feel bad that I was being a pain in the ass for people."

I strongly suspect this is the case for the majority of MU* players. At least it's painfully familiar, and almost everyone else I play with regularly say the same thing. So the trick is to create situations where you don't need to hinge on invitations or connections that already exist. Breaking the ice. Connecting people, without the burden of connection making being on one side only.

It wears people down, always reaching out. Because the brain weasel does get you: Are they only responding because I don't leave them alone?

I find that open scenes and open plot events are a very big deal when it comes to battling this. Make it hinge less on me to reach out -- I am putting myself somewhere and signaling I'm available, and if people secretly hate my company they can just not turn up.

@silverfox said in Battling FOMO (any game):

@tinuviel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

@ganymede You're typing like there's any sort of logic behind how people feel. People can know perfectly well that how they're feeling is unreasonable, but they still feel that way.

This is real, legit, and I felt it to my soul. I know my thoughts are utterly irrational 99% of the time, but it is still there and it is still very real to me.

This. And it's a problem we obviously cannot magically fix for everyone because ultimately, a lot of the time the problem is with the player, not the game. But we can still try to make it easier for the players with anxieties (hi, I'm one of us too), by creating an environment less optimised for hungry brain weasels.

Not suggesting a game with five miles' worth of theme pages on behaviour, policies, inclusion and so on. Been on one of those, had to leave it because of harassment. This is a player and community choice: You can try to be inclusive OOC, or at least do no harm. Do that, and you've done a lot more than you think -- and I base that in how many posts on this very board essentially circle the fact that it takes only a few assholes protecting each other to ruin a game community.

We can't fix everything but we can certainly continue to swap feedback and tips on the things we tried that did work, for ourselves or for getting others included.

I am having some success lately with an open scene format around a location rather than something happening; I tried it with a local historic archive first, and later on, with a community faire in an old factory building. There's no plot as such -- just an open scene format running on 3per, come and go as you like. NPCs do things that players can respond to. Scene runs for 24 hours or until it runs out of steam.

I measure success in how many people met who don't usually meet on grid, and on how many spin-off scenes are spawned. So far, it seems to be working -- both times, new players to the game have come in and gotten to meet people and break ice. Introductions are often what people find to be the hardest -- having an 'excuse' to be there.

@faraday said in Battling FOMO (any game):

If you're just running a game to play with your friends, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Just be up front about it. Ultimately, nobody is paying for a service, or forced to be there. If it isn't fun, don't play.

This. Nothing wrong with creating a game for your friends. I am on one with just seven players, all is good. But if you do open the game to the public and invite everyone in -- then you need to have at least thought about what you're offering. Or make it clear from the landing page that they're welcome to use the same sandbox, but stuff is not going to be made with the specific purpose of inclusion.

@tinuviel said in Battling FOMO (any game):

Most games I see these days rely on players to do much of the day-to-day storyrunning, not staff members.

That's one of those interesting things where I find people are very divided. Some players want staff to actively run a lot of things. Others (hi, I'm in that camp) want staff to run significantly less -- because when a game has a lot of staff-sanctioned plot, players inevitably start to attach less value to player-run staff, i.e. my stuff. It does suck when people don't want to do things because they feel that the stuff doesn't matter -- it's not staff run so why bother.

There's a happy middle ground and it lies somewhere around all plot is good plot, and staff and players both get access to the tools and the recognition for making things happen.

Games often die when that one staff member who ran everything burns out. I've been that person, and I know how valuable it is that players also make things happen themselves. Optimally (to me) there's always more things going on from more story runners than I know about, whether I'm staff or not.

On some level I do feel it's too easy to sit back as a player and just hold onto my popcorn while expecting staff to keep stuff running. It's obviously a commitment staff made when opening a game -- but we also need to remember that this is a hobby and no one gets paid for the work they put in. If things are going to keep staying lively and exciting, also for the story runners, things need to happen that they don't already know how will turn out, don't have to drive, don't need to do the homework for, too.

Or, well, that's how it works for me. I obviously don't speak for everyone. I do know I always seem to function best on games that have a main plot thread going but staff largely don't mind/encourage me to do all my own stuff on the side. I tell stories, that's what I do.

@il-volpe said in Battling FOMO (any game):

I do hear "We need staff-run plots!" and "Staff ran another event for Abelard, Brigid and Camille, and wouldn't include me, that's the third time this month!"

Staff obviously should get to run stuff for their personal circle too. If there's a pattern of 'friends only' every time, though, staff may have forgotten that they opened this game to the public, and some level of public accessibility is not unreasonable to expect.

Personally I try very hard to do a 50/50 split. Half the stuff I do I do for me -- this is my char's development, his story, with his buddies. The other half, I either run as narrator or through an NPC, or at most, in a low key presence as my char -- and I will schedule those, make them accessible to anyone who signs on.

It's pure selfishness. If I only play with my existing mates I don't meet new exciting people. Running stuff for others lets me feed my story telling drive and meet new playmates. Win-win.

One of the issues I see all the time, on this board and on games, in myself and in others, is the dreaded FOMO. Feeling that you're not quite invited to the real party. You don't quite belong in the inner circle. Plot doesn't quite make it out to where you are. When things happen, they are over before you get to get involved. The same song on repeat from game to game -- there's an inner circle and then there's the rabble who never feel like they truly are included.

Please note: There are absolutely games where staff encourages an inner circle to close up and fuck the rest. Disregard those games for the purpose of this thread; I want to talk about games and game running where the intent (successful or not) is to include anyone who wants to be included.

It's something I keep in mind as a story runner, regardless of where I have been. How to make myself accessible to anyone who wants me; how to get wanted by others; how to signal that you're interested in doing things without signaling that you're a door mat.

People list lots of obstacles; from brain weasels to inconvenient time zones, from not being able to play every night, to lack of focus and too many old cliques and grudges. I don't want to discuss whether these issues are real -- they're all real to at least some of us.

What I want to discuss is ways that have WORKED -- when it comes to getting story to spread like ripples on a pond, reaching beyond the initial, most involved people and out to where everyone else are. How to make even very casual players feel like they can have a say if they want to. That if they remain uninvolved it's because this story does not interest them or they don't have time right now, but maybe the next one will and they will be welcomed if they jump into that one instead.

Making a game environment feel welcoming and inclusive is harder than it sounds like, and I'd love to swap stories of things that have worked at least some of the time for y'all. (We have plenty threads about when it doesn't work and everyone feels FOMO).

For me,

• Scheduling events up to three weeks in advance, and making it clear which kind of characters will be given preference. Not 'my buddies' but 'people with park ranger type skills'. A new player who doesn't know anyone has an 'in' there if they happen to have skills that fit the scene.

• Doing a fair number of open scenes in which recent happenings (from events) are talked about. Information is passed on to others in the form of gossip and small talk. Names and plot devices get wider distribution. You know it works when a couple of players go off to scene about something adjacent on their own.

• Keeping track of who ends up 'taking the reins' in events and scenes, scheduled and not. If it's always the same person, that person doesn't need special catering. The ones who are always there but don't get to say a lot, they're the ones I need to throw a little extra to -- they really want to be included but they're struggling.

• Not to be confused with the ones who turn up and act disinterested, drop out half way through, or feel like trying to push molasses uphill. They don't want to be there; don't waste precious energy on them that could go to the others who do want to be there.

• Rumours and gossip posts on a relevant forum: Give names and locations so that characters adjacent know who to ask and what to ask about. If you read on the forum that the building your office is in had a gas leak explosion, there's RP right there, talking to others in the same building about what the hell happened.

• Balancing different kinds of fun. You don't have much success with stark horror or epic adventure if there's never anything else. Mix and match genres. Include occasional slapstick. Black needs white, dark needs light. Audiences like different things.

• Which leads to, be clear what a scene is in advance. Is it comedic? Say so. Is it deep dark terror? Say it. Save others the frustration of being in something they don't like while others who do miss out instead.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm out of tea. For now.

@solstice said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

I feel like every single thing I get in life anymore is chronic, and just has doctors shrugging and being like, "Oh well, that's your life now."

It's a big awful pill to swallow. Particularly the knowledge that no matter what you do from here and on, it's not going to get better. There is no 'someday I'll be well'. Only 'how long can I postpone the inevitable', and trying to make the most of what you have left.

Not going to lie, there are days where I feel like it's a battle so uphill that even getting out of bed is too hard.

@il-volpe Everything is shades of gray. The way you describe your situation I kind of do feel that maybe you should vote with your feet. After all, if you try everything and you still don't get included -- maybe that's just not going to work. Which bloody sucks and it's not a fun feeling at all. But neither is keeping on trying to bend over backwards and still finding that it's just not enough for this crowd.

@kanye-qwest said in A healthy game culture:

Or my favorite, someone is upset they can't get included in something, and you find out the people who could include them just don't really want to play with them. Do you think you can/should force people to interact with other people?

Nope. No one should ever have to play with someone they do not enjoy playing with, and they should never have to justify it, either. It sucks to be left out but there is always the other option: Make your own thing happen and play it with the people who like you.

I know it's not realistic on all games, but I do think that sometimes, people sit back too much and expect to get a ticket to the season's entertainment. That's an attitude that sort of implies that there are people hired to create entertainment for you, and unless you're on a pay to play game, that's a mindset I'm wary of.

Which is obviously not to say that there aren't games and cliques on games that can be next to impossible to crack. But then the same kind of applies: Go somewhere else, do something else.

One of the big game culture hurdles is plot hogging -- how to get into ongoing plot, how to get included, how to make people not feel left out in spite of the fact that no one person doing this for a hobby can cater to players 24/7. That's one thing to look closer at and examining because frankly? Bored players are where drama breeds.

I find that a healthy game culture lets people do their own thing. Step A is allowing it -- acknowledging that you as staff won't know everything that happens on your game, nor will it get run past you. It's ok. Other people's ideas can be good too.

Step B is opening your setting to step A. Create a game world where people can tell their own stories and those stories can have just as much impact as the 'official'. Otherwise, those other stories are always going to be perceived as 'second rate'.

And step C is to make no one story the official, sanctioned one. Weave your web so that Bob's story of those supermarket ghosts is just as much part of the official canon as Judy the staffer's tale of the strawberry pickers on the farm.

The only way to include everyone is to continuously work at removing the barrier between 'the officially recognised stuff' and the rest.

@lotherio Yes and no. I came to the MUSHing world from MUDs, and it's not my experience that people are any less attached to characters in MUDs. In fact, almost the opposite -- if they've invested hundreds of hours in grinding skills and gear, they don't want to start over because of a couple of unlucky rolls.

@greenflashlight said in A healthy game culture:

Vampire is kind of intended as a deconstruction of vampires as a concept, and god knows deconstructions tend to attract fans who totally miss the point and just think yeah man killing people for food is awesome!

To be fair, Vampire was marketed from day one to the people who loved to dramatically wallow and try to be more edgy than one another. Ah, the Vampire LARPers of the early 90s. XD

Going to just reiterate my agreement -- that ultimately, all of this is about two factors:

Communicating clearly what your game is and who it's for. Don't try to be for everybody.

Make up your mind what game culture you want, and reward the behaviour you want to see more of.

I agree 100% that game culture changes player attitude. I've met people plenty times who were absolutely dicktastic in one environment and the sweetest, laid back people in another. The more competitive the environment, the more toxic, the shittier behaviour. And usually, some vague mumbling about how you have to adapt to a game and find its tone and so on.

@faraday Tempted to say that if you want to run a genuine pvp game you need to take it all the way and make no illusions of 'supportive community' or 'team play'. And also make it so that losing a char is not a big deal -- roll a new one, get back in the game, this is not the game for long, deep stories.

Which is fine. Again, boiling down to being bluntly honest on the label.

@too-old-for-this said in A healthy game culture:

@l-b-heuschkel To say nothing of how complaints about a 'bad roll' take a sour turn when it was a contested roll against one of the other people at the table. Instead of Jane patting Jack on the shoulder to commiserate the dice screwing them over, Jane has to listen to Jack bitch about how if the dice hadn't fucked him he'd have totally kicked Jane's ass... basically invalidating her win. Much as there are times I want to really really have my character punch another character in the face... I hate pvp so much.

I'm not a fan of pvp for this reason. But I will cede that as long as it clearly says on the label what you're getting into -- well, no one forces me on a pvp game, and no one forces someone who loves pvp to join one that doesn't offer it. To each their own.

@too-old-for-this said in A healthy game culture:

@l-b-heuschkel Or the bad guys looking to take over the world. I cannot express how often I wished for a good WoD MUSH where the players got to be the bad guys trying to take down the good guys. But I agree, you can't have both factions being playable PC's, it invites entirely too much backstabbing and pvp.

Yeah, that works too. Or both sides have grey mentalities, but they're still opposed to one another.

You see this in traditional TTRPGs a lot as well. There's a reason a lot of game systems recommend restricting 'evil' or 'opposition' races/nationalities/species to NPC use. The mystery is lost when half the party is from 'the enemy' and know all about how it works, and gameplay does tend to get far more complicated in terms of politics.

I am finding that there is a core of truth to the idiom that tabletop RPGs in general do not translate well to MUSH'es -- it's not just WoD though the competitive setting of WoD doesn't help.

The underlying issue is that a tabletop group is very much us against them. You have 5-7 characters against the game world. They don't have to be literally back against the wall, fighting everything -- but their core concept is 'how do we survive and make things happen', their little group against the world they live in.

A MUSH community is the world. There's too many people, too many stories, to keep it that simple. So to migrate that concept in a fashion that doesn't invite pvp and backstabbing you need to have a game setting that's still us against them. Players are the good guys, working against an external enemy. Not necessarily as one team or one group, but when push comes to shove? Shoot the alien, not Private Hendricks. Hendricks may be an asshole, but that's an alien.

A game that has other players as enemies on equal footing with an external enemy will see a lot of pvp and backstabbing ic -- and a lot of players who fail to keep ic and ooc separate because ultimately, we're only humans and bleed happens.

@pyrephox A good theme page has a section about what this game offers and what it doesn't offer, yeah. Because no game is for everyone, and no game should try to be. Success is not measured in how many players you get to app in. It's measured in how much fun you and your players have. Better to be on a five person game of awesome than be continuously disappointed among hundreds.

@too-old-for-this The type of game is also an issue. The more competitive and/or pvp-oriented, the more hierarchical, the easier it is to lose track of when you are just playing your char and when you are making staff decisions that might benefit your char a wee bit more than necessary.

Nah, there's no one true way. There is a set of issues and problems that crop up routinely, and there is a need to decide how you plan to address them in your game (or plan not to). The solutions will be as many as we have players and games, and some will work better than others.

@silverfox said in A healthy game culture:

I'm actually really torn on if it's vital to have staff who also play. On one hand, it'll keep them happier and more involved. However, it also makes it really hard (speaking from my own experience) to have that distance from the immediacy of a situation/individual that is causing an issue.

Staff should play -- because what's the point of creating the exact game you want, if you don't get to play it? And more so, what's the point of doing all the admin and behind the curtain work if you don't get to have the fun? Even when paid, staff should play, so they have a feeling for what's going on. I remember a friend telling me that as a WoW game master for Blizzard, they had to play, it was literally part of the job, back then -- to keep tabs on what's going on in the player base (it may obviously have changed since, I'm not a Blizzard employee and while they are, they work servers nowadays).

It's also important to avoid the mindset of us against them. When a game turns staff against players, the game tends to get harsh very quick.

@il-volpe said in A healthy game culture:

MU GMs who treat it as the price one pays to get enough control over the game to have your PC (regardless of if you call her an NPC or not) get to be super-cool ought to have learned to do better during table-top games when they were 12.

That, pretty much. GMing is hella fun. But if you never have any feeling of risk or loss, you stop feeling the impact. Someone who only plays NPCs does not.

It's legit to have rules in place to stop staff alts from ascending to the top in a player hierarchy, though. Got to be a limit to how many dung heaps you can be top beetle on at once.

Also, frankly? If staff declares that it's their game and they'll do what they want and if you don't like it, leave -- leaving is in fact an option. Just because a game exists doesn't mean you have to play it.

@kk said in A healthy game culture:

That plot belongs to so and so.

No. No plot should ever belong to any one person. If a game has a mad number of say, homeless urchins, it's legit to close that option in applications for a while. But anything that is on grid, belongs on grid, and nothing is the exclusive territory of one clique or player.