The 100: The Mush



  • If people, due to repetitive assholery, feel they cannot penetrate into the clique, then people will leave.


  • Pitcrew

    @Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:

    If people, due to repetitive assholery, feel they cannot penetrate into the clique, then people will leave.

    FTFY.



  • @surreality said in The 100: The Mush:

    @TNP Not quite.

    I suggested they ensure they have support for the 'strike off and get the thing done on one's own' thing that happens frequently on the show (because it has to due to the kind of characters doing... exactly what you're describing, really).

    ...and brought up exactly the problem regarding something involving a small group of authors and a collaborative group like a MUX, actually. :/

    I stand corrected. I've actually only been skimming the posts of the people who don't/haven't played there since it's the 'I left because staff didn't...' has never been completed beyond 'fix the problem magically'.

    It is, though, refreshing to hear complaints about a game that is about purely IC behavior instead of OOC and that people are taking the theme too far instead of things devolving into a huge lovefest as is so often the case.

    And in the interests of transparency, I play Morgan. So by all mean, feel free to page me on game. We can work out backstory if you want or just RP. He only threatens to kill people who threaten those he cares about.


  • Pitcrew

    The only caveat I would give to Gang of Dolls post is that there's a huge difference between a TV show and expository insight there into an antagonistic character vs. on a MUSH. A TV show is not in any way collaborative. A game is. So thinking that you can beat people over the head with expository insight into your PC and why you should still sign up for being treated like shit/more audience than participant and that solves things doesn't work very well.

    It's a very delicate balance. I can see it being very very fun for the people who feel empowered to do whatever they please and write off everyone else OOCly though. In my experience though, that tends to feed to a point where even people who enjoyed being around them once don't after awhile, because it doesn't create a great OOC environment for anyone in the long run.

    At least not IMO. Maybe this is why I'm finding it harder and harder to find a place to play anywhere. I really would like a genuinely collaborative environment, where there's some give and take. I could find that pretty regularly in pockets before (maybe I just had more time, or was more willing to give some time for people to "decide" OOCly that I was worthy or for me to decide "yes, I can tolerate bad first-second-third impressions and just ride it out for awhile", so I got over that first hump) but these days if I run into more than one scene dominator, or it's someone that I know should know better, it turns me off so bad it's just hard to recover.



  • @GangOfDolls said in The 100: The Mush:

    The art of magnificent assholery is poorly understood and the players who are taking it too far, who think they're building an air of mystery that's meant to intice us to come back and peel away more of the onion? They are often creating a bar so high that not even the people that can sing the high note in the Star Spangled Banner can get over it. And the reality is -- no one with a little self-respect for the way they want to spend their limited free time to play in a game after a certain point is going to enjoy bashing their head into the same wall over and over and over again just to flatter your mean as fuck with no apparent upside PC.

    This needs to be bronzed. Bronzed and quoted in every CG room or newsfile or cg-help wiki page going forward until the end of fucking time.

    No, seriously, I may want to steal this some day for exactly this purpose. May I? Will attribute however is desired if so.


  • Pitcrew

    I want to make sure I understand this.

    The people who quit the game and are railing about how awful things are here SO VERY LOUDLY played the first handful of days on a game that is only a month or so old, and are basing their opinions on what was ICly a hugely traumatic/dramatic situation for all of the characters. They are not taking into consideration the increase in the playerbase, that people are now starting to settle into their characters, that the immediate BOOM of brand new PCs in a highly traumatic situation is over, or that the characters in question have perhaps learned a bit and changed.

    There are people claiming how this game is based on some other game, that have not played on this one, taking potshots at the game for fun.

    Staff have asked people to let them know if they're currently having problems on the OOC level that they can address, and have stated pretty clearly that they will not be dictating character attitudes. .

    @surreality I have seen several things done that were people going off by themselves to Do Stuff without staff-alts being involved in even making the suggestion for The Stuff Being Done, so I feel it's safe to say that there is support for folks to go do their awesome thing.



  • @Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:

    I want to make sure I understand this.

    The people who quit the game and are railing about how awful things are here SO VERY LOUDLY played the first handful of days on a game that is only a month or so old, and are basing their opinions on what was ICly a hugely traumatic/dramatic situation for all of the characters. They are not taking into consideration the increase in the playerbase, that people are now starting to settle into their characters, that the immediate BOOM of brand new PCs in a highly traumatic situation is over, or that the characters in question have perhaps learned a bit and changed.

    There are people claiming how this game is based on some other game, that have not played on this one, taking potshots at the game for fun.

    Staff have asked people to let them know if they're currently having problems on the OOC level that they can address, and have stated pretty clearly that they will not be dictating character attitudes. .

    @surreality I have seen several things done that were people going off by themselves to Do Stuff without staff-alts being involved in even making the suggestion for The Stuff Being Done, so I feel it's safe to say that there is support for folks to go do their awesome thing.

    I'll take this one.

    1. No one is claiming this game is based on another game. There are people referencing storytelling/staffing similarities to a previous game.
    2. No one is taking pot shots at this game for fun. Downplaying people's critique of the game as being some childish trolling tactic is an excellent way to try to negate the things that they're saying, but it's really not a respectful means of doing so.
    3. Not all of the people who have quit did so early, and not all of the people who have shared complaints with people like myself are posting in this thread.

    Here's what you need to understand: There are people that had a negative taste in their mouth due to railroading, cliquish behavior, and difficulties breaking into RP with characters due to a large amount of IC angst that, in their opinion, made icebreaking and getting into the game very difficult.

    I see no reason why we can't treat this politely and respectfully without resorting to OH MY GOD JERRY GIVE ME THE MIC. I NEED TO MAKE A POST ABOUT HOW STUPID THESE PEOPLE ARE. means.



  • @Kestrel said in The 100: The Mush:

    I honestly do see what you're saying, @GangOfDolls, and I play a totally terrible person. There has to be give and take. Playing a bad guy is not just about playing a bad guy, but about engaging the people you're 'bad' to, making them feel special, relevant, and offering them the chance for a solution, not just a problem.

    A simpler way of putting it is that at least some players of antagonistic characters simply aren't very good at role playing. They fire off monologues rather than interact, and they expect both you and your character to do nothing but react to them. Dealing with this can really be a pain, especially when the antagonists' characters are cartoonish, incoherent, and no fun for anyone but the person playing them and maybe a small circle of buddies who all approach RP as if it were YouTube comments. Unfortunately, some people believe that being antagonistic can only mean being a narrowly oppositional dick (i.e., "No, you!"), so that's all they have to bring to the table.



  • Precisely. When you RP as an antagonist in a shared RP space, there are ways of doing it without sending out IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO RP WITH ME signals. People don't want to RP and just get shit on by the other player, and like some people mentioned earlier in the thread, the game is under the assumption that there aren't really any new faces. So reason stands that any person outside of said "antagonist's" social circle could be a potential ally, so immediate hostility is just really, really, really hard to work with on a MU.



  • I don't think the problem here is individual players and their antagonist characters.

    I think the problem is a broader issue of people playing antagonistically and then staff denying their antagonism is happening.

    The 'examples' given by staff of problem players refer to those outside the ruling clique.

    They don't encompass the problem players within the clique. Now I don't play there, so I'm just going to take a wild guess and say the clique includes:

    Oblivious meathead - This person plays a violent, abrasive meathead character. Hoo-ah. OOCly they see nothing wrong with their character's actions and neither does their clique because 'lol he is a good rper and you just don't understand.' Usually a typical generic whitebread male character with few defining personality traits aside from those mentioned.

    Oversensitive whiner - This person is militantly triggered by everything and oh my god people are so mean! Of course, this only includes things said by those outside the clique. When the clique members do the same things they just say 'lol they are just joking and you don't understand'. Most often an effeminate, stereotypically gay character.

    Spotty McSpotlighterson - This person's character saves the day! They are in charge! They're the focus of the story! They only do it because nobody else steps up though. If they didn't, nobody else would! They're not a problem, you're the problem for thinking they're the problem! This one varies but is almost always a staff alt of some sort and usually somehow has more stats or XP than anyone else.

    Bitchy Queen Bee - All other female characters are played by bitches and they deserve to be the victims of cattiness OOCly from Bitchy Queen Bee. BQB doesn't mean those hurtful, snide things she says! She's just joking! Really! I mean Becky is kind of a slut and Tracy is a bitch but lol, am I right? Tends to use 'pretty but generic' PBs and plays characters that are 'sweet' or 'kind' or 'nice' while behaving manipulatively OOCly.

    ...am I pretty warm with these stereotypes? I'm willing to bet that names immediately pop into mind for those of you who play the game.


  • Pitcrew

    So, if I'm correctly understanding what I've read so far:

    • Players are upset that they are inundated by a bunch of IC unpleasant to varying degree characters. Maybe this wouldn't be bad if it were limited to only a few, relative to the size of the game. That way people can choose to interact or not. It doesn't matter if Jackass Joe was only mean to you once, and that Megabitch Maisie was, and Dickhead David and Diva Danielle and Punch-happy Peter, etc. etc. etc. were only mean to you once or twice because the net result is still being treated like crap every day of the week. At that point, it makes no difference where the antagonism and abuse are coming from.

    • No one is complaining that the players of those jerks are necessarily being OOC jerks. Just, at most, obtuse. Except for one player who was threatening to kill other characters while they slept if they didn't fall in line, but that player is no longer on the game.

    • There seems to be a lack of friendly, welcoming PCs with whom they can interact.

    • No one is saying antagonistic characters are bad per se, but the antagonism needs to be presented in a certain way in order to be engaging and fun for the non-antagonistic characters/players -- which may or may not be a valid description of wrongfun.

    • Some players are complaining they don't see the problem. Others players are saying those players are part of the problem, either because they don't realize the extent they are being IC assholes or because they are so happy in their own RP bubbles that they are oblivious to anyone else's lack of a good time.

    And if this is not what people are intending/meaning to say, I'm putting it out that this is the impression pages of comments are giving me.

    Edited to add bit about one OOC bullying player.



  • @Karmageddon said in The 100: The Mush:

    • There seems to be a lack of friendly, welcoming PCs with whom they can interact.

    Except, in my opinion, this is not the case at all. And while there certainly was a lot of IC antagonism in the beginning, it's lessened as 1) players have settled into their characters and figured out the nuances of RPing them and 2) external threats are forcing them to work together.

    At the beginning of the game, it was just the Delinquents freshly tasting freedom and squaring off over pro and anti-Ark sentiments. And then they find out they're not alone. It's a truism that the enemy of my enemy is my friend (or at least someone I can work with to stay alive).

    Keep in mind that it's been less than 5 RL weeks since the Delinquents Landed. Characters grow and change as they get played and are affected by plots.


  • Pitcrew

    @TNP said in The 100: The Mush:

    @Karmageddon said in The 100: The Mush:

    • There seems to be a lack of friendly, welcoming PCs with whom they can interact.

    Except, in my opinion, this is not the case at all. And while there certainly was a lot of IC antagonism in the beginning, it's lessened as 1) players have settled into their characters and figured out the nuances of RPing them and 2) external threats are forcing them to work together.

    Which is fine, but it also is your experience. I'm merely trying to determine if I have a correct read on what other people are complaining about. It's not possible to successfully address a problem without understanding what it actually is. And, often, unfortunately, really understanding still doesn't garner any viable solutions.


  • Coder

    For me it comes down to this: Players are (probably inadvertently) ruining the fun of other players simply by playing their characters a certain way ICly.

    I have seen nothing in this thread to indicate that the way those folks are playing is either out of theme (hello, delinquent teenage criminals), or OOCly abusive (again, with the exception of the kill-you-in-your-sleep dude who left).

    So it comes down to the age-old entitlement/compromise argument that crops up on these boards every other Tuesday. To what extent is Player1 expected to cater their RP to make Player2 happy? If they feel their character really truly is that way, how much should they be asked to bend just to keep the peace?

    To put a different spin on it ... it's no different from someone coming here and complaining about the opposite problem. Like, they try to do something exciting / conflict driven but everybody else on the game just wants to do endless tea parties and TS in private rooms. It's a legitimate complaint in terms of why you don't like the game, but I think attacking the players for doing it, or attacking staff for letting it happen is inappropriate. It's a matter of style and taste and what you want out of the game.


  • Pitcrew

    @TNP said in The 100: The Mush:

    @Karmageddon said in The 100: The Mush:

    • There seems to be a lack of friendly, welcoming PCs with whom they can interact.

    Except, in my opinion, this is not the case at all.

    In your opinion, this is not the case at all because Morgan is part of the cozy little group doing all the things. He has been in all, or nearly all, of the major event scenes (these same scenes almost always containing the same four or five PCs) and when he isn't cozied up with Cameron (another player who doesn't see the problem) is usually playing only with those other PCs.

    It feels rather like that group is busy reassuring themselves that there's nothing wrong, to the point of a fairly ugly echo chamber.

    edited to add: Despite this, whether my observations are true or accurate or not, it's a game I'm still trying to get traction on. I have issues with some things that are going on, obviously, but I also don't want to be solely on the dogpile side of things.

    @faraday and others make a fair point that Staff should no more try to control asshole PCs than they should try to control friendly PC. However, there is also a game's overall health to consider. Do they want new players to stay and become part of the game? If so, there needs to be characters on the grid who do not lead with their worst behavior. Starting off can be uncertain and nervewracking for the best of us, and if your first steps on grid are greeted with FUCK OFF FUCKFACE RAR, it may be your last time on grid, too.

    If there was an easy fix to this, we'd all be fat and happy on perfect games by now.



  • Question: are the Delinquents and Groundersrun by staff PCs/NPCs? Does the game support whether or not players/PCs form their own splinter faction in a PC-controlled tribe to barter and trade with the Delinquents/Grounders as they see fit?

    To me, the obvious answer for players who feel they can't break into the clique is to splinter off on their own, but if staff doesn't support it or may negate it due to Staff-controlled factions refusing to acknowledge said splinter tribe, there might be little point in the effort.

    But if I were playing there and the tribes were too cliqued/railroaded by staff involvement or antagonistic characters running the show, this would be my response. There would be enough IC justification (and thematic) for characters deciding to take their share of supplies and homesteading.


  • Pitcrew

    I remember a time when games would heavily advise against playing wallflower/overly shy PCs because it would make it difficult to be involved. Sure, there's 'your fun' (though I am so sick of that phrase because so often it's used as a defense for being a problem OOCly), but MU*s are made to be cooperative.

    I wonder if this game were packed with wallflowers who never interacted with anyone other than their BFFs, if Staff would be pushing to do anything they could to fix it. There's just something about people playing assholes that gets people super defensive about it.

    I'm also seeing a lot of 'Well, in the show, it's common for people to behave this way...' Maybe this is just a bad setting for a MU. Maybe folks should write fanfic instead and play games that encourage being cooperative (you can still be a dick, while being totally inclusive; there's a PC that does that extremely well on a game I'm on right now).


  • Pitcrew

    @Auspice said in The 100: The Mush:

    I'm also seeing a lot of 'Well, in the show, it's common for people to behave this way...' Maybe this is just a bad setting for a MU. Maybe folks should write fanfic instead and play games that encourage being cooperative (you can still be a dick, while being totally inclusive; there's a PC that does that extremely well on a game I'm on right now).

    Or maybe it's not a setting or a game for everyone.

    I don't even play there, for the record, but I see this with a lot of games, where people just don't fit in with a game's culture decide it is the worst game or a bad game. It may be--for them.

    Sometimes all you can do is accept it's not a good fit.


  • Pitcrew

    @Coin said in The 100: The Mush:

    Or maybe it's not a setting or a game for everyone.

    This is true, too, but really: that's nitpicking my phrasing, too. ;) My personal reason for not playing there is I just don't enjoy playing characters that young anymore. Too many HP games, I guess.

    But there -are- settings that don't lend well to a MU, but are nonetheless very cool. Sense8? Super cool concept. It'd be good for a small RP group to do privately, but as a MU it'd be terrible.


  • Pitcrew

    @Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:

    Question: are the Delinquents and Groundersrun by staff PCs/NPCs? Does the game support whether or not players/PCs form their own splinter faction in a PC-controlled tribe to barter and trade with the Delinquents/Grounders as they see fit?

    To me, the obvious answer for players who feel they can't break into the clique is to splinter off on their own, but if staff doesn't support it or may negate it due to Staff-controlled factions refusing to acknowledge said splinter tribe, there might be little point in the effort.

    But if I were playing there and the tribes were too cliqued/railroaded by staff involvement or antagonistic characters running the show, this would be my response. There would be enough IC justification (and thematic) for characters deciding to take their share of supplies and homesteading.

    Wait, why is this getting downvoted? This post in general is pretty constructive. "What can staff do" and here's a suggestion - support people forming their own cliques. Seems logical.