administrators group

Pyrephox

@Snackness God. I’m so sorry for you and your family.

Pyrephox

@Trashcan said in The 3-Month Players:

I also don’t agree that all players want to stick on a game but the game fails them, and I don’t agree that you can make the game so shiny that these people will stick when they would have otherwise gone off to the new shiny thing. Some people are 3Ms and that’s just the way they are. You can make the greatest, most inclusive, most content-having, most relationship-building game anyone has ever seen, and they will still wander off to check the next up and coming game.

Just because the game isn’t meeting their needs, that doesn’t mean that the game failed them. There’s no conceivable way that a game can appeal to every single MUSHer out there, because many of us want different things out of a game.

There are many reasons folks move on from a game. I’ve just seen zero evidence that there’s some kind of ticking 3-month clock (where they’ll move on just because of “novelty” if the game is otherwise a good fit for them) built into the majority of MUSHers. YMMV.

I agree with this.

I think the “Bubble” is basically just what happens when a whole bunch of people try something out. Think about any sort of “trial” or “demo” program you’ve ever been involved with - if there’s something ‘hooky’ about it, then you’ll absolutely get a lot of people who initially show up to try it out–but the majority of them are always likely to find that it’s just not right for them.

That can be for a myriad of reasons: some element of the theme/plot is offputting, the active times aren’t when they can play, their friends aren’t interested in playing, maybe the first few scenes they had didn’t go well, or maybe the character they made doesn’t really “fit” either them or the game but they don’t have the energy/investment to make a new one, or heck, life gets busy/stressful and you miss a week of that New Game Activity and you come back and it’s like…well now I don’t know what’s going on and you just don’t have the energy to try and find out.

Your initial rush of players are “freebies” in some ways, because they will try out EVERY game that’s vaguely in line with their interests. But you won’t keep most of them, even if you offer to send them ice cream or something. What you can do to try and control what parts of that attrition that you can control is a) be ready for that rush as much as possible so that people who MIGHT stay don’t feel neglected or like they can’t be seen among the throng, and b) have an answer for what happens when you lose 60% of that initial rush, including a lot of people who were enthusiastically participating in things.

Things like the Search rotation mentioned above, or what Arx did with its chapters and broad areas of entry can help sustain a steady influx of people as long as staff can sustain the work involved in those and people can feel like they can have a nice balance of Plot RP and Personal RP.

junipersky

So the trial… isn’t over. They ran out of time and so scheduled an additional two days in June. We aren’t very happy about the 60 extra days the defense gets but bio parents haven’t made much movement in the last 24 months, so what can legit happen in 60 days? That is eight more visits with the kids apiece.

Kiddo didn’t go to visit this last week because she had a fever - and she has been amazing. We are babying her a lot, but she is still getting upset about stuff then COMING BACK to regulation without losing her mind. Our only big battle was getting her back into her own bed from the nest wr made her on the floor next to ours.

Pyrephox

The big thing for me is a persistent world that I can log onto on almost any schedule and find some synchronized RP with a wide variety of people. I do like the logging and wiki sort of features, but I don’t need them.

It scratches an itch that nothing else quite does.

junipersky

Child’s parents are having their termination of rights trial this week. On the advise of all of the professionals husband and I did not go. Our kiddo is the most emotionally affected and we want to be present for her - and also not hear/see the garbage/evidence put up and have it impact our opinions on things. (We know that the parents are going to try to paint the kids as liars who just made up stories during the forensic interviews, and that the county is putting up poster sized images of what kiddo has drawn in her journals.)

But hearing NOTHING is driving me beyond madness. Especially since child is home sick with a fever I’m 95% sure is nerves. (She wants to go home to mom and dad but also can’t argue that she feels safe and loved with us and doesn’t want to leave us either.)

Pyrephox

@Flitcraft OMG EDDIE. It’s good to see you again! I was Thomas at Darkwater. Not playing anywhere now, but glad to hear you’re doing well!

Pyrephox

Another random thought:

PCs should not be at the highest levels of power. There are a few reasons for this, mostly related to the nature of players.

The people who most want to be “in charge” of other PCs are generally not the people you actually want to have that power. And often, they want it as an achievement…and once they get it, they disappear.
If your game relies on themes (like, say, conflict between factions or internal societal tensions) then you should not rely on PCs to enforce those as leaders. Most players won’t enforce theme, and the ones who do often end up burning out and miserable because they’re thrust in a position of “fun police” that isn’t actually very fun (ask me how I know).
“Good” leadership is actually not great for the game part of the game. Leaders who try to make friends, decrease tensions, and set up long-term successes push things towards stagnation. PC leaders who lean into creating thematically-appropriate conflict often catch whole loads of shit from other players. NPC leaders only have to make decisions that are aimed at making the game fun/exciting/tense for everyone - PC leaders often make decisions based on what they feel will make other players like them, or just get off their back.
Likewise, absent or rapidly rotating leadership makes it hard for players to have continuity of play, and PC leadership positions usually exist in a state of either functionally absent or flipping through PC leaders like a rolodex as new people show up, burn out, leave.

Pyrephox

I am not going to live up to @Roz 's praise of me, but I do have thoughts. So many thoughts. I will not share them all.

But I will say that I absolutely agree with what was up above - you need to distinguish what matters to you about a L&L game. I want a political game, and my biases are towards systems that promote and perpetuate a political game. The degree to which lords, ladies, fancy balls, or fashion are involved is very irrelevant to me. In fact, one of my never-gonna-happen “would love” MU* games is a political game centered around a free city with power split between elected citizens, powerful merchants often from outside the city, crafting guilds, and the mercenary forces the city needs to keep from getting eaten by outside powers. Balls and parties would probably still be involved, but they’re not the draw to me, even though I know that they are the primary draw to a lot of other folk. The Prince/ss fantasy is real and valid!

That said, my other bias is systemic - I absolutely think you need a mechanized system for political play so that people can risk actual (in game) resources on their goals, and gain or lose those resources. But if you’re looking to make a sustainable system, it also has to be cyclical and avoid either the death spiral where a character can lose everything and have no way of getting it back, or the dominance spiral where someone can amass enough power that they effectively will never be able to lose enough power to fall off the top spot. Players are going to naturally try to accumulate all the power and influence they can in a game, and while some folk absolutely do play “for the story” and will set themselves up for major losses or reversals, those folk are not a large enough segment of the population to keep a power structure from stagnating.

There are a lot of different ways to build a system - dice are easy, but it doesn’t HAVE to involve dice. But my three principles for it are:

There has to be meaningful in game stakes involved that PCs have influence over. (Maybe not sole influence, but PCs need agency.)
There has to be scarcity in resources so that no one PC or group of PCs can be self-contained.
There has to be mechanics to resolve meaningful conflicts and the loss/gain of resources.
There should be mechanics built into the system that make it hard to maintain dominance or be stuck in perpetual failure. Floating somewhere in the middle should be relatively easy for those players who really want to just play fantasy rich people and hang out.

The specifics of what those things LOOK like? There’s five million ways to do it, you just have to think about what conflicts you want to promote and what resources you want players to focus on.

Pyrephox

My preference is one + empowered mortals (can be supernatural, can just be political/police power in a setting where that has teeth and matters), but a small, selective duo or trio of spheres can be fine if you genuinely have support for those spheres.

junipersky

Some of my students are scared. A LOT of my foster family friends are scared. My caseworker is stressed AF. The county has 54 foster families, and some of those are undocumented because they are kindship placements. Losing them would rock the system - oh, and they’re facing budget cuts.

administrators

Posts

Member List