Game Discussion

[letsgolegion]

Recently, the mod team received some anon complaints about a shift in the game's focus. Due to the increasing incidences of moral ambiguity and characters arguing about morality, they felt that it was difficult for characters that were more idealistic to participate in certain things.

The anons stated that they didn't feel that anyone was actually doing anything wrong in playing out conflict, and felt that it seemed natural to have. It was more that they wanted help still allowing their characters to have their place for more typical teamwork and superheroism themes.

So the mods agreed to set up some discussion about it. Since even different mods might have different feelings on the matter, the mod team isn't going to discuss the issue as a joint entity. Instead we'll discuss it logged in as individuals.

We would like to ask everyone to please handle this discussion as not something that involves blame or accusations. No one is actually doing anything wrong. This is more an issue of different players wanting different things from the game and seeking a way to allow everyone to get what they want. We're hoping to just find a compromise where players have spaces to play what they want.

Anon commenting in the discussion is allowed, however if anyone is unnecessarily hostile, the post will be locked to the ooc comm, necessitating everyone to discuss it logged in.

Comments

[iamresponding]

Sorry if this is a little overly long, rambly, or repetitive. I'm not always good at collecting my thoughts for this kind of thing, and since it's just coming straight from me, I don't have the advantage of my comods helping me with working.

As someone who enjoys occasional conflict and also enjoys four-color comics idealism, I think that some of the conflict that's been played out so far was IC and perfectly fine to have. I think it especially made sense that characters got into moral arguments on a mission where the npcs weren't there, because they had to figure out what they wanted to uphold when the npcs weren't around. But I do also think it was something that was okay to have a few times, but also something we need to have the game grow on, and I think what the anons seem concerned about is if this will remain a cyclical thing that continually takes over a lot of missions and mission planning, or if it will resolve.

Conflict in general is fine, but if you're into teamwork and camaraderie, having mission network posts taken over by arguing is genuinely exclusionary. In bigger games, a mission briefing would be so huge that characters ignoring some parts and focuing on talking to others is fine. In a small game, with a relatively small single team, mission discussions are usually seen by everyone. For many characters it'd be ooc for them to participate in mission planning but totally ignore the arguing, which traps people into having characters either joining the arguing to try to mediate, or having to just sit out. For those that have characters that could ignore the arguing and just focus on the mission planning aspects, and have it be IC, it's still a little ooc for them to join a discussion where people are scrapping over things and proceed to be all gung ho teamwork while doing the planning.

In this game, it's larger than a tabletop, but there's still a single-party tabletop vibe where having something be an ongoing dynamic genuinely locks most of the rp party into it since it's just one party.

But I think there's an easy fix for this.

I feel like in any discussions or events outside mission discussions, people should be able to get up to as much conflict as they want (provided there's not TOO much actual physical fighting). They should be able to open up as many arguments or debates on morality or other issues that they want. By that same token, outside of mission discussions, people interested in peppy bonding should also be able to get up to as much fluffy kumbaying as they want.

But intense conflict and fluffy idealistic non-conflict are a lot more easily avoidable for those that dislike them when they're separate from mission-based things.

For actual mission discussions, I feel like while the past stuff was fine the first time, in future stuff we need to strike a middle ground of allowing teamworky idealistic stuff and cooperation, as well as some reasonable low-key disagreement. We shouldn't dictate that they stay completely conflict-free, but we also need to make sure drag-out fights, insults, or screaming matches don't become too much of a thing.

ICly, it actually wouldn't make sense for all pre or post-mission briefings to devolve to fighting in the future. It made sense in a plot where the npcs weren't there to keep people in line, and was a natural sort of growing pain for the game to have, but in general, if people are arguing around mission briefings in the future, it's reasonable that an npc would put their feet down, and shut things down or guide mission discussions where they need to go.

And to make it reasonable for characters to dial it down, to give them an IC reason, there can be potential IC consequences to people not keeping their chill. For instance, if people are getting into drag out screaming matches, Kid Q can threaten for them to be taken off the mission, and/or can make it clear they'd be put into cooperative exercises after, with who they're fighting. There's even something potentially fun there in having it so characters that fight are pushed into exercises after missions that are the equivalent of putting two characters into their get-long shirt.

Basically, I think we're all in the game for different reasons and that all those reasons are equally valid. I think nobody's actually done anything wrong and have just been IC (which the anons acknowledged), and that anything that has happened was reasonable, but that we do have to think about what happens in the future to make sure we strike a good balance. (I also think that now that some of the conflict has happened, it's starting to resolve naturally as the game and characters grow, anyway.)

So I think we need to be conscious of what we're doing in the future, to make sure there's room for what everyone is looking for, a proper balance between conflict and idealistic stuff. I think having things be "anything goes" outside mission briefings is fine, but the mission briefings are the area where it's been the most unbalanced. Whether we have too much drag out fighting in briefings or don't allow any debate or conflict at all, it would to lock people out. Keeping it where characters can be gung ho and have fun with it, and where civil debate or arguments over tactics can happen as long as they don't escalate too much would probably work for helping everyone get what they want.

[crowskinovercoat]

As one of the people who specifically apped a character quite likely to be a source of potential ideological and ethical disagreement with the Legion's way of doing things to this game because I express my affection for things I like by trying to figure out how to argue with them and as I've reiterated in the past I adore the Legion a whole lot, I'm constantly worrying I'm stepping on people's toes by just being in character because I know she's a little off the usual tack for the game; not even knowing that Duo Maxwell was an apped character here at some point and that this seemed to work out all right has wholly resolved my own ability to concern-troll myself about whether I made the right call or not.

Being told some people feel like they can't play their characters because of the character I'm playing (even if she's one of multiple characters presenting this increased moral tension) is nightmare scenario for me; I really want there to be some way for my interests and theirs to coexist in what is, after all, just a way for us all to kick back, have a good time, and tell a story together that we can be proud of for having something interesting to say.

So I really, really like this reply, and also really, really like the idea of the get-along shirt exercises in particular. This is what I apped the game to be able to press my face against and color inside the lines of. In character actions having interesting in character consequences is my favorite jam.

[iamresponding]

I definitely think a fair balance is doable! Because the anons actually did express they didn't feel like anyone was doing anything wrong, and didn't seem to think anyone was wrong for wanting conflict sometimes. I think people are just making sure they still have a space for different dynamics.

Just so people understand what they might mean, since some players are newer and the game has changed dynamics over time: one of the things that we had happen a lot before a lot of grey morality characters apped in was specifically in mission discussions, there was a sort of...it wasn't pure SOL, like we have outside missions. It was a kind of functional coming-together where they worked past differences for the greater good. But it wasn't pure fluff either: even if they joked arund, people sometimes disagreed on things, toos, but it was civil. It was a sort of focused thing that wasn't just SOL and pure agreement and wasn't heavy disagreement. And I think a few players are just concerned there won't be a space for that if the infighting becomes ongoing.

I feel like the issue is just making sure people have control over when they opt into either interpersonal conflict or fluffy SOL, as some players dislike either.

Also some players actually like both! But just want to have options on when they opt into it. For instance, I like both conflict and silly SOL. I've waded into some of these arguments with my characters just as much as anyone else. I even started a post with Rich that dug into them even more. But I also do like the "we're getting past our differences" mission stuff, and SOL cute pure fluffy stuff. So a lot of times when I get to do SOL, or arguing and character clash, is just something I'd like control over.

So, yeah, I think this is definitely something where there's a definite fair middle ground to find. I don't think anyone dislikes having varying character types with varying moralities in the game so much as they just want to have a solid measure of control on when and where they participate in certain dynamics. And that is definitely doable.

So, things we can do: We can provide lots of options in plots and types of plots, so people can have options for getting their extreme conflict on, or functional teamwork on, or fluff on in them, and allow players to continue having feedback on future plots with plot discussions. We can make it so people have lots of freedom to play with extreme conflicts or fluff in situations that are opt-in and easily ignorable for other players, because they're outside plots. And in places where participation is almost expected, like mission briefings, we can try to maintain a tone where arguments and debate can happen but be somewhat measured, so gung ho "go team" vibes can happen a little more easily, too.

So yeah, the mods can try to do all that and we can definitely try the "get along" stuff for those that want the conflict challenges specifically to push their characters to new places where they form new connections to others.

(And again, sorry if this is rambly or repetitive, I'm never able to really organize my thoughts for this stuff).

[araignee_du_soir]

As a newbie with one of those characters that thinks the Legion's restrictions are foolish, I agree with what you're saying here. I do believe that mission briefing stuff should be relatively free of IC bickering since it's a mission and the NPC leaders will be leaders and handle the situation.

There is one thing, though, and that it seems to me that some of the missions have this morality conflict built into the mission. Looking forward, the upcoming plot with Spectre attacking the prison has it written in its brief description that the Legion needs to decide if they're going to protect the prisoners or not. In cases like this, to take away the morality debate feels like it would remove an important aspect of the plot. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make sure plots that have this inherent morality discussion be clearly marked and there be alternatives that are devoid of that kind of thing going opposite for those that don't want to be involved.

It's entirely possible that this is being done already and I just haven't seen it do to my newness to the game. If so, I'm glad it's there!

[wallsofjericho]

Marie here, I also play Robbie Baldwin. There was a fairly huge morality argument during a plot in February, and then again in Rich Rider's post at the end of February, but I don't know if that's the sort of thing you're talking about already having been done...

I believe (and someone is free to correct me) that such decisions are left in the plots because it is possible to "fail" the plot. The players can choose to override their orders and do something.

You can always opt out of a plot (there are usually two run simultaneously) or have your character not be there when the choice is made?

I think part of the reason that morality debate questions are left in is that there is a considerable chunk of the taken list that thinks the Legion's rules are silly.

[iamresponding]

With both the anon complaints and some of the logged in complaints we've gotten (I've discussed some stuff with people on aim), they don't seem that heavily centered around the plot logs themselves? So I think that maybe isn't the biggest part of the issue. The characters are all pretty good at mostly playing by the rules on the logs themselves, even if they disagree with said rules. I don't even think occasional arguing is the problem. It seems like people are worried about infighting being repetitive and limiting certain types of interactions. I think the "will it be repetitive?" part factors into it heavily.

But in any case, with plots, we'll definitely make sure the types of conflict will be clear! Usually, the plot description in the "state of the plot" or game calendar, gives an general idea of what happens in the plot, but when we do the actual plot writeups alongside the signups, the whole plot is usually outlined in a lot more detail, so when people sign up they know what they're getting into. And we try to present plots that vary between having complicated moral decisions or being more about teamwork and trials of courage and so on.

In writeups, we've tried our best to lay out potential moral conflicts and try to draw attention to how certain moral choices will be perceived, and we'll make sure we keep doing it. (Like during the Murderworld plot, we made it clear what consequences would happen if characters chose to kill the mercenaries, and made it clear that their actions might be televised to a a disapproving public.) We'll make sure to keep giving that info alongside the signups instead of after, so people understand what they're choosing, what consequences it might have, and whether they want to go into it in the first place.

I think having a combo of variations on plot themes, describing plots ahead of time well so players know what they're getting into, and keeping mission planning posts a somewhat neutral territory that allows for both reasonable levels of conflict and teamworky stuff, can let everyone get what they want.

[walkingballpit]

I can understand where the anons are coming from, because I myself feel trapped by the morality divide. It's making things less fun, and I'm trying to find a way through it.

Just chiming in to say you're not alone anon.

[vata]

As someone who plays on both sides of the spectrum with a whole lot of frequency, I'm going to be honest here and admit that I disagree with the idea of a conflicting opinions/moralities being a hindrance to accomplishing missions or opening up playability, or that the game might somehow be shifting focus because of it.

Yes, it is a small game, and yes, that does open up avenues for more connections— both positive and negative in nature— however as someone who's played in many small games over the years (some even tinier than this one), that doesn't mean participation in anything, whether it's fluff or conflict, is unavoidable: for the entirety of my six months in game, I can think of only one instance where morality affected the pre-planning phase of a mission, and in that instance— considering what was at stake and being asked of the characters involved— was important. In the end, those involved resolved their issues and the mission was fine.

If what we're discussing isn't plot-related, but more focused around individual interactions, I don't think of this as anything different than say, someone overturning a box of puppies in one of the station corridors. ICly sure, it technically clogs up a hallway, and it's easy to say 'well damn, I have to get involved because that's near my character's apartment and my character's best friend is talking about it', but at the end of the day, Legion World is a big place. Eventually the system in place will get all those puppies cleaned up, and the people involved can settle the fallout individually. Likewise when it comes to conflict, there's a system in place to handle it, and there are ways to keep other characters occupied instead of getting involved. I've seen NPCs step in twice now to handle arguments (again, within a span of six months), and both times it diffused the situation.

The problem is when there's a lack of communication, or a lack of clarity in regards to what individual players want from the people they're playing with. I like to think that if someone would rather not have to deal with what my character brings to the table in terms of morality and nebulous motivations, or even something like negative CR, that they'll say hey, no big deal, but I think we're here for different things and I'd like to avoid playing that out between us.

I love this game, and I've enjoyed what I've been able to achieve in it, but I'll admit it's difficult at times to parse what sort of framework we're operating within: if this is a game where all character spectrums are welcome to come and begin to adapt and find their niche, those characters need time to boil over, or break down— sometimes with rippling effects involved between friends or castmates. I don't expect everyone to want to play that out, but I do hope they're tolerant of that process (provided missions are completed without incident, and that the Legion's disciplinary responses are respected). I've never once seen anyone complain about fluff or SoL (and maybe that has something to do with the people I have on my timeline or that I speak to personally), but I have seen a lot of complaining about conflict. At times, it can feel discouraging on an OOC level to see a sort of wavering event horizon line where interpersonal catalysts or viewpoints are acceptable only within certain limited circumstances, or in regards to equally limited topics. If disagreements are welcome, they should be welcome across the board; if they're not welcome, there should be a clear message and a hard line, so that it's not accidentally crossed— inevitably frustrating players on both sides of the fence.

This isn't to call anyone out or make accusations, but to bring up what I've seen and openly discuss it from an objective point of view, and hopefully help the game resolve any OOC feelings of frustration. If anyone would rather discuss this privately, my inbox is open as is my plurk.

[goddamngrenades]

I've been trying to get my thoughts organized on this- because I can see it from both sides of the argument but haven't been able to put it down in words how I feel because for the most part, I don't have any issues with the current morality debates ICLY or OOCly. I do think you've hit the nail on the head here, though, and said better than I could what I've had rattling in my head. If the conflict happens and everyone is communicating well out of character and no feelings get hurt, I'm very much a 'okay are we all having fun? Good' kind of player.

But acceptable levels of conflict do kind of need to be communicated. What is fun, what isn't fun, what are you looking to get out of this interaction, can I accommodate that- I'll bend and twist however need be to get us to that point as long as it's still fun for the both of us. As long as we're all talking to each other, I feel like things will shake out or at least we'll be able to avoid hurt feelings or misunderstandings, or feelings like we're getting boxed in or locked out by the idea of conflicting moral standpoints or personality clashes.

At the same time- you can't easily have a narrative (singular or collaborative) without conflict. The interpersonal collaborative narrative we're all building here together is kind of a big deal to me because that's why I rp. Character interactions, exposure to different points of view, discussions, debates, arguments- that lead to development and growth and greater understanding. It is entirely possible to build CR without any of that and it's fun and fine and enjoyable, absolutely.

I personally enjoy CR with and without conflict equally, but that's just me. If it looks like things might go a way that you're uncomfortable with- (collective 'you're' here) please talk to me so I can do the aforementioned working with you so we both have fun with the thread and CR.

[spacesharks]

I've only ever played extremely idealistic characters here and you pretty much sum up how I've always dealt with it. I personally avoid those big IC discussions on morality for a number of reasons—mostly, it's because I'm just not a fan of network discussions, but unless my character has something significant to add besides, "I don't agree." I just don't bother, really. I absolutely love more personal/situational disagreements, of course, but "discussion for the sake of discussion" is just not a thing I'm super into. But that said, I've never felt like not participating in these took away from my experience in the game, either? Like you said, there's always other stuff to do while these discussions are happening, so it never felt hard to come up with a reason for why my character wasn't around to have these conversations. Likewise, there's often plenty of stuff to do during the plots, so if I don't want my character to deal with a particular aspect of things, it's not hard to get him involved some other way. Like, I've always felt like Legion's plots are pretty good at offering multiple options for things to do during events. And besides, if we're talking about event stuff, even if my character might not agree with the method chosen, that could always be something for me to play around with later, so...

Honestly, I'll roll with whatever the mods choose to do because I love everything about this game, but I already feel like the game has been pretty versatile. It's never been super hard to figure out where my character should fit in a plot or what their feelings would be about it.

[iamresponding]

Personally, and this is me speaking as a player and not as a mod, and as someone that likes a lot of variation in interactions, I think it sounds like people saw things happen a few times, and got more worried about the avoidability of them in the future than being upset with them happening in the first place.

I personally think that having some big all out fights happen once or twice was understandable -- even welcome, because it let a lot of characters learn about each other and grow -- and that it might not even prove to be a problem in the future because said growth did happen. But I can't say that from the player end of things that I want to see that happen every pre or post mission planning post, and at this current moment, it's not set in stone whether it will or won't happen again so it's reasonable some have concerns. None of us can 100% know everyone else's future plans or planned character growth.

So I do think it's good that we at least discussed it here and so we can set boundaries. We may never have to use these boundaries because maybe the characters all got the worst of it out of their systems and will just keep adjusting as they go on, but it wouldn't hurt to set them. And I think that's the "hard line" you're talking about. These complaints are actually asking for that hard line, this discussion is about potentially setting it.

That said, I do agree that people need to discuss things more openly with each other if they're getting into it with other characters and not finding it fun. Mod hat on here, but if a player tells another player "sorry, I don't want to tag with your character because it's not fun for me since all they do is argue" or "this interaction isn't turning out fun, I'd like to drop it" that is perfectly okay to do. I think a lot of us would understand. And if anyone reacts badly, even when it's asked politely, people can report that to the mods because nobody should be reacting with "our characters are just fighting, I'd like to not toss them together in the future" in a negative way.

But regarding the framework, just so people are aware of some of the mod attitudes on the direction of the game: this isn't a faction game. Characters can form cliques and factions privately all they like, but it's not going to be like one of those more sandboxy games where people have multiple alliances poised against each other. This isn't a game where a player character will ever be Legion leader or where Legion protocol will ever be relaxed or changed, which is why we lay out the rules in an ic rule page. We have a suitability section and an IC rules page to make it clear what characters will have to adjust to and that adjustment to new methods is a part of the game itself. It's a game where people can definitely disagree with each other and their beliefs, and sometimes argue, but that does also have some structure, where "civil wars" (like in a lot of comics and comic movies) or open conflict wouldn't be allowed to happen. It's a game where players have some options in methodology and some choices in outcomes of plots, but characters are still expected to play by certain rules. Them adapting to these rules fortunately doesn't have to be sustainable forever -- the game is a campaign that will end, so for some characters they don't have to dedicate themselves to this for life or really believe in the ideology they're acting on.

And I definitely do think we need for there to be room for characters to disagree with these rules as long as they're willing to act by them. (I want to app in a kill-happy ninja myself, who has to figure out how to play along). But that doesn't mean that arguing about them should be welcome in every place the arguing could be, for however long people want to argue.

I think this clash is natural because it is a process for many characters. But we have some people playing this game for "I want my former soldier to have to adjust to new methods he doesn't agree with and deal with the challenges that come of it." And we also have some playing because they want to have their characters find their inner courage, or learn to be a part of something bigger than themselves, or for the sheer superhero fun of fighting cyborg jetpack gorillas. Some even want a mix of a few of those things all together. But that means morality arguments shouldn't be anymore mandatory than the SOL camping trips or movie nights are, because everyone isn't here for the same reasons.

So this is just my personal opinion but I don't think disagreements should actually be welcome across the board. Just like I don't feel like people should be forced to play the SOL stuff across the board, which is why there's no mandate that people have to join on the camping trips, for instance. (That's also the same reason that the SOL plot coming up, "To Have and To Hold," has non-fluff plot options being run alongside it). I think there should be places where the extremes of conflict and fluff are fine, but also areas (usually the things that are harder to avoid, like mission briefings) that need to be kept more neutral, which is something that can be controlled with ic consequences and use of the npcs.

Most of us are already on the same page with having the characters agree to play by the rules, whether they agree or disagree with them. That's not in question and not really an issue. I think the areas where there's conflict have to do with things outside the actual action. I think a good way to handle it would be that in non-mission network posts, people can just do what they want, and if anyone dislikes that, they can have their character conveniently miss the post. That includes characters maybe disagreeing with the npcs or overall direction of the team or stuff like that.

But if we mandate the briefings to always allow extreme conflict or be totally conflict-free, either way we are alienating people. There's a middle ground there, where disagreements or debates over method could still happen but get nipped if they start to get out of hand.

Does all that make sense?

(And geez, again, sorry for how long this is. I suck at brevity).

[vata]

I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood what I said when I mentioned conflict being 'acceptable across the board'. That doesn't mean mandatory. Just like what I mentioned above in that conflict and fluff are both avoidable and no one should be forced to participate, conflict that functions within Legion restrictions with IC consequences shouldn't be something that is, essentially, OOCly discouraged beyond IC interactions. Yes, RP is absolutely a melting pot, and I get wanting a space that isn't constantly in turmoil, but again, in the six months I've been in game I've only seen one mission have in-depth disagreements— and that mission still involved characters cooperating with one another despite the fact.

Given how long a period of time that is for a single quickly-resolved incident that didn't affect the mission play or its outcome, I (personally) don't think this warrants a reworking of the game's function or how missions are handled.


And when I said hard line/framework, what I meant was the ability to transparently understand what is or is not permissible from an OOC standpoint regarding IC interactions. For example as a player, I can tell you what characters cannot do in Eudio (the hard limit is violence of any kind), or in Station 72 (anything that would damage the heart of the setting itself, meaning the NPCs would need to swoop in and kill the character), or Ryslig, or Futurology, etc, etc. When I joined Legion, I assumed the requirements were (based on the writeup): that they agreed to cooperate with the Legion in completing missions, and that they didn't attack the Legion itself, with minor punishments doled out for minor infractions along the way— and that if they refused, or decided to lash out, they could choose to leave and become mercs instead.

That leaves a lot of potential on the table, and a lot of room for interpretation as to what is or isn't kosher— even in regards to how characters view the Legion or its rules (a la the disagreement before OwtO, etc)— things that should theoretically be acceptable. If my understanding is wrong, I'm fine with that, I just feel like defining that is important on an OOC level so that people who want conflict or chill or any mix in between understand what they can or cannot do without getting frustrated with one another. I'll emphasize that this is a second issue, one I brought up as someone who's noticed some general dissatisfaction about disagreements, and that might be somewhat unrelated to the immediate topic at hand now that you've clarified the initial reason for the anonymous complaint.

It seems like we're not actually disagreeing on talking to define the 'hard line' and laying it out, or even the concept of balance itself in RP.

[unrecovered]

I pretty much agree with all of this. As long as someone's interpersonal conflict doesn't become the entire game (and I don't see that happening here), it's easy to handwave a character being on a mission and coming back three days late with Vegan Spacefuture Starbucks - that way, the character can still look at the post and ICly stay informed without having to be ICly involved.

I also think we've had an irregular amount of huge conflicts lately, namely because Out With the Old (pre-mission planning and post-mission discussion), Locus' Legionnaire Legacy, and Widowmaker's introduction all happened relatively close to one another. (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, as I enjoyed all of those immensely - those are just the four biggest public conflicts I can think of in recent memory.) Given the plots coming, I'm betting the amount of public knock-down drag-outs will decrease in frequency.

That said, I also think OOC communication is a huge part of this. If something I'm involved in is making (the collective) you uncomfortable, please talk to me - I'm more than willing to work it out.

[touchmydragon]

So newness aside, ambiguity, I think, is a good thing. But it does require open communication. The tl;dr has been given but I don't think it inhibits any character unless a person is not open to speaking their minds with others or (and this is important), find themselves in a position where doing so will make them feel ostracized.

So-! Really, the answer is to find a way to open up communication and, in the end, if two characters do not agree on something and it gets DEEP, have an NPC say "Hey, yo, reign it in". We have to realize that characters are not going to agree and perhaps it may get a bit deeper than that. But that's not a bad thing. However, it is up to the mods to make sure it doesn't go too far both ICly and OOCly.

OVERALL, with the size of this game, having a pre-mission IC and OOC discussion (the OOC, I think, is handled already) about things would definitely ease things and make it work as a whole. Characters can bring up their own reservations/plans and things can be molded to that. If it were a larger game, I don't think this would be a solution but considering the size, I think it could work.

But again, these kinds of IC discussions would be made with a mod NPC supervising so things can stay civil. And it can be discussed OOCly that maybe a PC would derail the entire plan altogether because they don't agree with something and, yep, it can be worked with! Just...a place with open communication without a feeling of backlash would make it work and would ease problems.

[turntex]

Everyone else seems to have already said everything necessary so I'll just poke in to say I'm always super down for IC conflicts of all sorts but if someone isn't looking to play that for whatever reason then that's cool, just shoot me a line if something's giving you a problem and I'm more than happy to find a workaround. I'd rather stretch limits of disbelief and have a character just not notice a discussion or whatever than force people to play something they don't want to.

(And of course that goes for any sort of conflict, not just the morality issues at hand here. I obviously play a fairly abrasive asshole and I don't ever want anyone to feel like they can't approach me if they're not comfortable with something!)

[zippity]

I am gonna word vomit a little here because it's 4am and I am in the middle of a con but still want to say stuff. My tone is not meant to be accusatory, I am just a little blunt in terms of trying to get my ideas across about this, so I hope that doesn't out anyone off.

Personally I think the link between idealism and all the issues mentioned doesn't exist. Tracer is one of my more idealistic characters, so I am not really sure where the problem is stemming from. To be honest, I am a little disgruntled by the idea that there exists a scenario where a person can't work with the idea of conflict and is blaming it on their character archetype, and that we are inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

Conflict is what drives a story, and if you play an idealistic character, sometimes that comes with the territory of appearing naive icly and that's just something a player has to accept. Imo, it's part of the appeal. This is a game centered around a universal conflict, and it just seems a little silly to me to want to avoid the idea entirely on the basis of idealism -- utopia itself doesn't exist in most canons either. So I guess I am just having a hard time understanding why this is even a discussion that needs to be had.

I know it was stated that the anon didn't have a problem with conflict but...i guess I am not seeing where they don't?

Everyone apped in knowing the circumstances that brought everyone here -- maybe the games themes just aren't a proper fit? I respect wanting to cater to everyone who has shown interest in the concept, but this all kind of comes with the territory of the premise.

You also can't ask a player to have their character stop arguing about something that is passionate to them icly, especially if they have knowledge or experience related to the subject. That would be asking a player to be ooc, and is also equally exclusionary. I would say that if arguments and conflicts aren't fun for youx then don't engage.

[muroieda]

So I guess I am just having a hard time understanding why this is even a discussion that needs to be had.

This is basically where my head is at right now; I keep reading the contributions to this conversation and the only question on my mind is "isn't the heart of the issue resolved through player-to-player communication?"

I play a character that'll act like your best friend in one tag, try to choke out your character in the next, and then go back to best friend mode in the third. I don't expect people to just accept this at face value, communication is always key.

There was a thread between Junkrat and Casey in which Junkrat got his ass handed to him. The entire time we had back-and-forth over Plurk on what we could and couldn't do to each others' character and the end result is something we both agreed and consented to. At any point one of us could have gone, "no, this isn't what I want out of this thread." And that's when we would've worked something that could have even ended amicably.

The way that RP works is that it's not chiselled into inevitability, you have the power to make your own threads what you want them to be. The mods are game curators, they're here to keep the setting alive so that we have a solid sandbox to play in; they're not meant to micromanage our interactions but rather enhance them when needed. Parcel and I had the option to have NPCs get involved with our thread, but we provided the opportunity for another player to step in.

tl;dr: Communicate. The characters may bite but the players don't.

[iamresponding]

I'm really not sure I find it reasonable to suggest the game themes aren't a proper fit if people don't like a lot of internal conflict because the mods have actually never intended this game to be hugely fraught with internal conflict.

A lot of the game advertisement emphasizes teamwork and coming together against a greater (apocalyptic) threat. The game premise advertises that the support npcs around the characters will try to work harmoniously with them. Villains signing up, and characters splitting off from the team are emphasized as difficult to make work in the game. Anyone that signed up thinking internal conflict was the point, maybe has it a little turned around because that wasn't the intention of the mods nor how players have interacted with the game for close to a full year. If we need to advertise that more clearly, we can do it, but we definitely need to get on the same page about it.

I'm not saying there's no room for it at all. Personally, I enjoy it in moderation, but it's definitely not the point of the game, either, and I think anyone coming in after a year of it not being the point of the game and saying it's a major theme and that people who dislike it aren't a good fit is actually overstepping some bounds. As a mod, who never intended for it to be a heavy thing and who has a lot of plots in the can that are heavily rooted in people having to cooperate to fix things, that's a little worrisome to me.

I think there's room for what everyone wants but to go have the game torque from "we're going joke about the colors of the goofy rings of the enemies we're fighting" in mission briefs, or mission briefs where they looked past their differences, to zoom to "let's go kill people" "let's not kill people" is a major shift. Personally, I'm comfortable with it happening in moderation and in certain areas, but as a mod I'm not interested in modding a game where it's overly pervasive as a focus (and didn't plan for it since we play up the idealistic cooperative stuff), and as a player, I want some control over when I can avoid it or partake.

That's fortunately not hard to do. Infighting outside of missions is entirely opt-in, and anyone that can't accept that needs to just deal. But in the mission briefs, yes there's been a slight, fairly recent shift. What it did shift to recently has never been the point of the game. Something that there's room to have happen in the game occasionally, certainly, but this is has always been meant to be PvE, not PvP. There should be some growing pains, but the thing with growing pains is they happen and they hurt and then there's growth after. I think the concerned people are just worried about the growth part and whether or not it happen or if we're going to get entrenched and go all Marvel about things (ie open fighting).

I think with this, having it happen occasionally was and is a-okay, but I can't say that I feel it should be heavily pervasive either. That was never really the intent and that's not the kind of thing that saves a universe thematically. I think we need to lighten it up a little in the one place where people are sort of forced to engage (mission briefs), and allow it to happen naturally in places where people can just opt out of tagging in.

[zippity]

Idk, I suppose this is the part where I agree that this is more of a communication issue than a theme issue. As I said, I respect that people don't want to be involved in certain things, but I just don't find it reasonable to restrict other people from playing out what feels natural to them because someone doesn't want to deal with an argument. On the flip side, It wouldn't be fair for me to ask everyone to stop everyone to stop asking silly questions on the network because they didn't pertain for me or interest me either, you know?

We might have to agree to disagree on that. I don't like circular arguments either, but I have only ever failed to resolve conflict that involves multiple people quickly (or at least took it somewhere where there was less people) because someone dig their heels in oocly.

My hope is that we're all able to talk ooc about when a thread goes in a direction someone doesn't like, or conversely, we are able to avoid situations that potentially involve themes that don't interest us. :)

[walkingballpit]

We aren't "inventing a problem that doesn't exist". If the mods have felt that this was a rational enough complaint to devote a post to, it clearly exists.

In the future, could you please try not to minimize how someone else feels by saying that you're disgruntled by the very notion? It doesn't really make me want to explain my side.

[iamresponding]

Yeah, actually, I want to emphasize the numbers here. The mods know the identity of the two (non-mod) anons that have complained. They aren't made up nebulous people, we're just keeping discretion since it's what they wanted. Then there's Marie here, myself, and off the top of my head, 3 other players I've spoken to that have some concerns.

They may not feel like speaking up and that's fine. But I'd like people to not diminish this with saying it's "made up." That's 7 players out of 39. About 18% of the game, and there may be more that might not have spoken to the mods or me.

This is an issue where we can probably resolve things to a lot of people's satisfaction, so I'd like people to refrain from acting like this is a made up issue.

[zippity]

I am sorry that we happen to disagree on this. My wording might have been a bit unfair because of the hour. I am more disgruntled by the idea that we have to have a gamewide conversation about this, rather than approaching the players involved and settling it that way. I have admittedly had a few communication problems through my stay here, in that people don't seem to voice things until it's beyond the point of repair and it's a little frustrating.

If someone doesn't find conflict entertaining, that's a perfectly tenable position -- I believe it could be solved with communication when a player senses the thread is headed in that direction. Is that a fair statement?

[araignee_du_soir]

After having watched this discussion for a bit, I am still nit getting a good grasp on the theme shift and how character morality is causing it. I fully believe this is because I have only been part of the game for a month. I want to understand so I can try to not contribute to the problem.

That said, if someone is willing to give me specific examples so I can see what's being referred to, I would appreciate it. If confidentiality is a concern and referencing things here is too much, I am more than happy to hear about it via pming this account and keeping what is discussed to myself.

I don't want to step on toes but my limited experience with Legion is hampering me. No worries if no one wants to stick their neck out! I know it's asking a lot from those that prefer to stay anon.

edit: Let me edit this to clarify examples where it was a problem. Marie already referenced Rich's network post about morality, but that feels like it was much needed upon a quick skim.(I'm at work)

[(Anonymous)]

I think the biggest example of a difference is that for most of the first year, we had very few conflicts over the no kill rule, let alone big sprawling moral arguments on a mission network post like in "Out With the Old."

If you joined the game more to play with cosmic conflict and other types of character growth beside things to do with morality, if you liked the teamwork vibe more, if you were more in it for characters overcoming differences and finding a purpose and forming cool deep friendships, if you liked the team unity angle, to go from having the morality stuff rarely ever coming up so that the focus was on other types of characterization or conflict, to open all-out vicious morality fights in mission posts is a huge shift.

I think we're seeing a clash between people who apped characters into a superhero game to be superheroes for the hopeful reasons, and people that apped in dark soldier and assassin types more heavily for the conflict of adjusting.

I think the biggest problem here is that to play for the lighthearted superhero angle, the game itself gives you all the structure you need, and there are enough light-hearted characters to play that out with. But to play the angle of a character clashing against hopeful hero ideals, some are heavily falling back on doing it by having their dark characters clash against hopeful idealist characters. Some of the players of those types just aren't here for that to be a permanent fixture to help people play out that specific arc over and over. We're okay with it happening here and there, but at least some of us don't want to be drawn into that too often, hence worrying about it happening too often in the future and speaking up before it becomes too much of a problem. We didn't app for the interteam conflicts, we apped for the cosmic one.

I'm at least reassured by seeing how open people are being about players putting their foot down if something's not fun for them, but a lot of us didn't know how to bring it up and it's helped that the mods at least opened discussion. One of these types of character tracks can accidentally come at the expense of others.

[superscholar]

A lot of stuff has already been discussed about this, so I'm not sure what I can really add to the discussion. Having said that, I can also understand how this is a problem, since I think this is pretty much the reason why I've been having such a hard time getting Gohan off the ground.

I don't really have any solutions to offer or anything. I have a hard time organizing my thoughts in the form of multiple-paragraph posts. I just wanted to chime in to say that yes, I consider this a problem that merit discussion.