RPing with Everybody (or not)
-
I’d basically like someone to explain to me why having a truly, TRULY neutral player who generally RPs with 1-2 people is a NET LOSS to a game. I’d argue that this is even better than a solo player who just lurks. For THAT, you could make the case that they’re just farming XP or something, but personally I wouldn’t care. From what I can understand, ya’ll want a No Dead Weight policy, which seems like it’s usually applied to staffers.
If they are doing anything that somehow reaches you and informs you that they hate the theme and the setting sucks and everyone else sucks, that’s a player problem, not an engagement problem. As ever, it always comes back to the player problem.
I think we can all agree that it is perfectly acceptable for staff to create their own rules. I’m just trying to figure out why games might think a player engaging in this specific manner is a net loss, like they’re somehow taking up a slot that someone else more engaging would be utilizing.
-
@MisterBoring said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
someone joining a game to play Uno in the basement with their BFF has either missed the cue that the game owner is trying to build a more social storytelling experience, or noticed the intent of the game owners and willfully chose to ignore it.
If you’re going to expect players to somehow guess at your intent in creating a game, I think that’s inherently misguided.
There’s nothing wrong with setting expectations for your personal game based on your personal preferences. People can judge whether that’s the right game for them.
Like if you set up a board game night where you say “We’re going to play Settlers of Cataan together” and then someone wants to go play Uno in the basement - sure, that’s more of an issue. (Though there may still be a good reason, such as due to disability or neurodivergence - communication and understanding are key.)
But players aren’t psychic. And there are PLENTY of games out there that have no issue whatsoever with players who are just merrily playing by themselves and not causing any trouble.
-
@Yam I’m going to venture a guess that at least some of the reasoning is habit from the 1990s when it really did matter how many people were connected.
The MUD I played back then lagged to the molassis and random disconnects point when more than 50 people were online. So the guys standing around doing nothing were not in generally in favour with the rest of us.
However, this is not an issue today as far as I’m aware.
Any pronouns. Come to Chincoteague. We have ponies. http://keys.aresmush.com
-
@Faraday said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
If you’re going to expect players to somehow guess at your intent in creating a game, I think that’s inherently misguided.
I would never have them guess. In any future game I run, my intent will be documented in the game’s documentation, and pointed out on the front page of the game or in the initial room upon connection.
-
@MisterBoring said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
@Faraday said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
If you’re going to expect players to somehow guess at your intent in creating a game, I think that’s inherently misguided.
I would never have them guess. In any future game I run, my intent will be documented in the game’s documentation, and pointed out on the front page of the game or in the initial room upon connection.
OK but this thread as a whole is not about players who are willfully ignoring clearly stated rules of a particular game. We’re talking about general, tacit expectations for behavior in the broader MU community.
-
@L-B-Heuschkel Yeah, for me what comes to mind is RPI muds. I recall having to salute my captain on channel every time I logged in. It was just in the rules. I signed up for those rules. I can also sign up for enforced engagement (I think?) but the reasoning intrigues me.
-
@Yam said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
I can also sign up for enforced engagement (I think?) but the reasoning intrigues me.
I think the reasoning for some level of required player engagement comes out of home RPG games, or small group games. For example, you run a Star Trek game and invite 6 people to play. When it’s time to play you begin to tell a story of the crew of a Federation diplomacy vessel making headway into the Delta Quadrant. Five of your players engage with the story and the setting, while the sixth immediately walks into your den and starts talking about how his character is a Klingon warrior uncovering dishonorable criminals in the First City on Qo’noS. He isn’t technically hurting anything by doing so, but he is a distraction.
-
@Yam said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
I’d like to hear the cold hard requirements that you might expect from players and how you plan to enforce them. Hypothetically.
I don’t plan to enforce them and I don’t think that attempts should be made to enforce them. I’m arguing that it is better (for the game community, of which each player is a part) if individual players choose to RP outside of their core group of friends than if they do not. I’ve said a couple times that it’s not a crime, and I’m not sure that I’d even “have a polite conversation” with someone about it. It’s somewhat rude and people will notice it, but it’s not an infraction (unless specific game policies are being violated) or an indictment on their presence on the game.
-
I am friendly but I don’t have friends really or join games with groups of people. If I recognize someone from a previous game that I enjoyed RP with, I’ll wave and smile and hope to RP with them again.
As a ‘lone wolf’ type, I heavily rely on people breaking away from their friend groups to RP with me (or let me in on the RP with those groups).
Do I expect it though? No.
If I can’t find RP on a game, I’ll just leave without a fuss and find somewhere else.
-
@Yam said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
ya’ll want a No Dead Weight policy, which seems like it’s usually applied to staffers.
And IC leadership. In theory.
The problem arises when a staffer or IC leader plays only with favourites. So they’re not dead weight to everybody but they’re absolutely dead weight to some players.
In my experience, this happens regularly.
AwesomeStaffer is the Blue Faction GM, but she’s too busy with stuff for Red Faction to respond Blues. She’s dead weight to Blues and active and fun to Reds.
The PC Squad Leader loves to play with PFC Parts and PFC Eye and PFC Jet, but isn’t interested in PFC Property or PFC School, and refuses to pass info to them because he’d rather spend his limited RP time RPing playing poker with Parts and Eye. He’s dead weight to Property and School, and active fun to Parts, Eye, and Jet. Very likely he will not have to face the IC consequences of being a squad leader who only does the job for half the squad.
"This is Liberty Hall; you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard!"
– A. Bertram Chandler -
Yes. Everything about this!
-
All of that seems fair. But, I’m not sure that the expectations I would have for staff and ST’s to be inviting and inclusive would be the same as the onus I think is on players. It’s GREAT if players are or can and want to be. But. They don’t owe it to a game to include folks, as long as they’re not actively pushing people out and away.
We're all mad here.
-
Given my current schedule, I’m waiting for the “RPing with Nobody” thread
(all good points from Gashly and LB)
-
@Jenn said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
All of that seems fair. But, I’m not sure that the expectations I would have for staff and ST’s to be inviting and inclusive would be the same as the onus I think is on players. It’s GREAT if players are or can and want to be. But. They don’t owe it to a game to include folks, as long as they’re not actively pushing people out and away.
Yes – I don’t think expectations for staff should be the same as for players. And I don’t think expectations for IC leaders should be the same either.
Still, as player complaints go, this theme-and-varients is common: GM has a three-day turnover time for +requests from Group A, and runs plot-scenes for them every week or two, while we in Group B wait two weeks for a +request response and GM takes a month and a half to give Group B “You visit the chapel and the priest tells you to fuck off,” minimal sort of things.
With IC leaders, it’s more common, but maybe less complained about, because of those different expectations. Faced with an IC leader who was unavailable and unpleasant to play with, I just asked the GM to give me ways to access plot without that person, and was annoyed that GM would not do it. Though honestly, I think it’s utter rubbish to put gatekeepy players in positions of IC power that allow them to gatekeep. (UNLESS you are going to also allow the natural IC consequences of this to smack them inna face.)
There’s also the reverse – Ages ago my PC was the police chief. There was a PC cop who was a problem player. He would basically wander around and interrupt people’s RP to harass them, commit unlawful searches, false arrests, etc, etc. He did not follow orders, would not RP getting dressed down by his boss, would not accept a dressing-down in an @mail as IC, and staff refused to let me fire him. (Inexplicably, since they also admitted that they really just wished he’d go away.)
