what’s even worse IMO is that the staff alt will submit jobs under their alt and then they will answer themselves in said job as the staff bit. Which is just… lol crazy IMO

I got invited to be staff on a game in the very early part of the 2000s. The head staff there (during the time period where we were working on the grid and systems and prepping our glorious metaplot) let staffers create their PCs during the wind up, and he created 2 for himself. A day later, but still weeks before we meant to open, he started having conversations with these two PC bits in the public channel, as though they were completely different people. The other members of staff became concerned after the conversations became really angry arguments about stuff unrelated to the game. We had a meeting with the headstaffer a day or two later, and he admitted he was starting to have some severe mental health issues after he got fired and had to move back in with his parents.

We ended up deciding to stop the game before it even started, and went our separate ways. I ended up using the plot bits I wrote up for it in my regular tabletop group at the time, to a meh reaction.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

@helvetica what’s even worse IMO is that the staff alt will submit jobs under their alt and then they will answer themselves in said job as the staff bit. Which is just… lol crazy IMO

okay THAT is fucking WILD. what the hell

I always side eye when game admin use new handles with no history in the community. Not a crime in itself, and I get there might be logic behind that sometimes. But def contributes to a certain level of shadiness, especially in context with stuff like this.

@catzilla said in MU Peeves Thread:

@MisterBoring said in MU Peeves Thread:

@bear_necessities said in MU Peeves Thread:

IDK how to explain it better, I just feel like staff should be upfront about who their PCs are.

I agree with this. I also believe that staff should not include their PCs in the scenes they are running. In my experience it often leads to Mary Sue / Gary Stu behavior.

At the VERY MOST, I could see them using their PC like, ‘hey I found this spooky rock, can you guys go investigate it?’

But then again, a NPC could do that as well.

This is the weirdest thing about the Staff at Neon Protocol. Their NPCs are the heads of every single org - not a big deal, in fact some people prefer that. But then their PCs (Margot & Punky, I believe) are like… also org heads? Second in command of the orgs? But very blatantly story-surrounded, to a point where it is a feature of the character, and it would be FINE IF IT WAS DISCLOSED. The problem is the non-disclosure, and my particular issue with it is the subterfuge, and the weirdness around it. Specifically, the character I randomly chose off the roster had a secret that centered around both of her alts, to a point where I believe that the intent was to create some sort of romantic vibe with one of them given how it was written, and very much cast Margot as a (if not THE) plot device. When I paged Margot asking her how she wanted to play the secret, she came off very “tee hee, I don’t know, I had no idea that you even had that secret about me!” and I’m just over here like what the fuck?

So. If you want a game where your character - or characterS - are the central plot, if you’re going to link every single character to your character, if you are going to have secrets centered around your characters … god damn, at least be up front about it and tell the people that it’s your character.

I’ve noped off the game, but I think everyone who plays there should be aware of what’s behind the curtain.

At the VERY MOST, I could see them using their PC like, ‘hey I found this spooky rock, can you guys go investigate it?’

But then again, a NPC could do that as well.

This one doesn’t bother me at all, especially if there’s a good IC reason for it – like being the head of an org. If someone leads an org, they’re running plots for the players in it, and the role of their PC in said plot is essentially The Quest Giver? They’re doing their job in character and doing extra to contribute to the game OOC. You go, Glen Coco.

No one is forcing you to take the OOC offer. But at least they’re trying to be inclusive. And without inclusivity, a game dies fast.

Totally, which is why this is probably just a me thing. I love people being inclusive, but everybody has their own social quirks and habits and stuff that have to be worked around, and I think one of mine is “Please don’t try to throw plot at me until I feel I’ve established my character.”

It feels weird and disingenious for game runners to have an undisclosed PC (or PCs plural, possibly) that are seemingly central to story. Like, I get on one hand that staff sometimes just want to PLAY and not have everyone climbing over themselves to play with the staff PC because they are the staff PC and they THINK they’ll get story out of it … but if your staff PC is already “the story”, why not just be clear about it?

IDK, it’s weird.

Some of them have two

@bear_necessities said in MU Peeves Thread:

IDK how to explain it better, I just feel like staff should be upfront about who their PCs are.

I agree with this. I also believe that staff should not include their PCs in the scenes they are running. In my experience it often leads to Mary Sue / Gary Stu behavior.

At the VERY MOST, I could see them using their PC like, ‘hey I found this spooky rock, can you guys go investigate it?’

But then again, a NPC could do that as well.

So, without knowing who/what on the details here, it’s just a guess on stuff. But like… Personally, I’d rather see that happen on a game than the other way around. It’s super easy to say “No thanks, I’d rather not engage in this plot, it’s a bad fit.” Or maybe, “Thanks for thinking of me, but I’d rather wait and encounter it IC’ly.”

But like, I know I sent out a really wide-ranging page to a lot of folks on the game that was OOC, but with and invitation for it to be IC if wanted, but also without an obligation for it to be.

Because my character got a recording of something that to my awareness, none of the other PCs have access to yet. And I’m also aware that I’m not everyone’s cup of tea and there are people who would rather not play/scene/type with me. And that’s a super fair and legit choice that shouldn’t cut anyone out of plot or stories.

So I mentioned places I’d leave copies of my recording that they can pick up and run with on their own, without me, and with the people they want to hang with. Because plot should be open to everyone. And I’m just pasting in anyone on the job who wants to run with it so that they can. I’m up to RP about it with people who want to, but like…

Personally, to me? I think a game culture that makes it easy for people to opt into plot without forcing them into encounters with people they want to avoid is the higher priority than either being uncomfortable by having to have a scene with someone you don’t like, or being left out of a plot that your character would fully invest with.

No one is forcing you to take the OOC offer. But at least they’re trying to be inclusive. And without inclusivity, a game dies fast.

has the PC always been around ICly? because i feel like that’s an important point. if the PC literally just moved to the place or something, then wouldn’t they just respond accordingly IC that they just got there?

In this particular case, no, the PC has just moved to the area in the last week and has only met 3 other people who are also unconnected to the specific plot. And the requests to have the PC join the plot have all been OOC.

Possibly a new peeve of mine (I’m still mulling it over and trying to decide whether it irritates me or not):

When a player is trying to do certain scenes to help them establish a new character and get used to playing that character and speaking in that voice, but others are trying to handwave that stuff and just operate as though the character has always been around and has in depth IC knowledge of current events with no actual scenes to back that up.

has the PC always been around ICly? because i feel like that’s an important point. if the PC literally just moved to the place or something, then wouldn’t they just respond accordingly IC that they just got there?

but if they’ve been in the place ICly off-cam, then it makes sense for other PCs to treat them that way.

@Yam Imagine a horror game where seven out of every ten characters ICly are this person and they all do it at each other all the time and you have my peeve.

Have all my upvotes. I only have one. But you have it.

Philistines! You just don’t get my sophisticated, highbrow sense of humor.

I don’t mind admin being in a scene they run; having run a LOT of scenes in other places as an ST, if I didn’t have my character in their scenes, it would seem like my character didn’t do a damn thing. But I definitely stood back and let other players do the lion’s share of the work.

If admin on Neon don’t want to have an Ares handle, that’s cool, but they can definitely link their PCs and not JUST their NPCs on their admin page.

That being said I think staff should play their own games. I even think staff should have their PCs in scenes they run, because a lot of times you as staff are the only person running story anyway. It’s the non disclosure and subterfuge that is bothersome.

IDK how to explain it better, I just feel like staff should be upfront about who their PCs are.

I agree with this. I also believe that staff should not include their PCs in the scenes they are running. In my experience it often leads to Mary Sue / Gary Stu behavior.

Agreed this is not very good optics for the staff