Scope - meaning the tapestry in which the game is set - is up to staff to set and enforce.
See, that's the thing - if you cannot have the setting without the features, then, frankly, the setting is a poor choice for a MUSH - simply because the features make the player characters irrelevant. However, you /can/ have Amber, for instance, without the features. You really can.
But - I've been around as long as you have, Cor - I'm certain. Star Wars was a joke on Amber, Amber was a joke on Star Wars. Everybody growled at WoD, and Dune ... well. The reason these settings become a 'joke' is because players have a comfort zone. Things they like - and since we all mine the same playerbase, well... I never played Amber before RTA because of a prejudice I picked up back in the days of Masquerade. So it goes. :)
Man. You and I could talk for hours on this - but I'll be honest with you - I find /features/ to be cardboard, 2-dimensional, unfun, and trite. You certainly /do/ have a handle on who's who.. because only the features get to be the 'who'. Everyone else is defined only by their relationship to those features.
Of course, I spend a lot of time on original-theme sites, and you'd think - in the end- they'd have the same problem of defining the movers-and-shakers and keeping things moving.. but they don't. And the same techniques an original-theme MUSH uses to make sure folks know who the people on the MUSH are, and who's in what position, can be used to push a non-original theme that lacks features in its scope.
We /know/ that a book exists to promote the story of its feature. That isn't the point of a MUSH. A /mush/ exists to promote the story of its players. If a book theme cannot stand without the features being present, then it is a poor choice for a MUSH theme, no matter how compelling the setting. However, if you can extract a decent setting and theme without the features taking a promenant role? Then you've got something.
If you cannot come up with stories in that universe that don't involve the characters you know from the books... then there are bigger problems. :)
So you both are right ... sort of.basil_rtaFebruary 2 2009, 18:53:53 UTC
[obligatory dino notation] Having been around the block a while ... [/obligatory dino notation]
I think you guys both have some of it right - as does RTA, at least in premise. Are features (being defined as characters taken directly from their representation in the source materials) absolutely necessary to successfully convey theme? No. That being said, if you are going to use a theme and not use the features, you better be able to take up the slack. Also, certain settings work better for this than others. I am not a huge Amber junkie (though I have played on a good number of Amber MUs), but I know it would be tough to explain the absence of /all/ of the good ol' Amber standbys if you used the Amber setting. And, even if you could come up with such a setting, you are begging the question ... why? What are you creating this big disconnect for? Is there going to be a correspondingly large pay-off for it? If you have the chops, go for it, but know you are taking a creative gamble. Compensate for it.
I am also, at this point going to back away from some of the blanket statements we have seen heretofore. There are great settings without features and god-awful ones with them, just as there are well-played features and ... less well-played features. In the end, all a feature is, is a tool -- one of many in the toolbox, that the designers of a MU can use to create a setting. Yes, features come with baggage, but they are also an enormously powerful tool to quickly establish theme and (for the lack of a better word) legitimacy. I'll note that the same could be said of a setting created in-game position which can be held by non-features; and by this reasoning almost all games have setting propagated (as opposed to player propagated) elements (I will mostly ignore, for the moment, the related argument that the title of something like "Jedi" is in many ways as much of a "feature" as that of "Luke", but I digress ...).
At its onset, RTA took as its core idea that all of its characters were awesome and that everyone can tell interesting stories. In a sense, we are all "features." I think we have all found that in practice this is a rewarding, if sometimes difficult to realize, ideal. I think it is only natural to still get a little antsy when Benedict enters the room with a sword at his belt or when Corwin starts getting all John Wayne'y, but that isn't neccesarily a bad thing.
The book features we do have were given a leg-up, but not an insurmountable lead. In fact, I would not be surprised if at this point certain player created characters have not overcome this initial deficit for their story-import and potential story-impact. Certainly, at this point features are not the only "who" on the board.
And this brings us to the most important point (at least for me): for a MU to be successful it must be able to incorporate and manage change -- the telling of stories demands it. Static relationships, characters and settings are anathemas to a successful MU. Just as players need some sort of a shared-basis (or understanding) to tell coordinated stories, they need to have the expectation that their stories can change things, and thus, in a game-sense, matter. If the features are unchanging/unchangeable centurions of the order of things .... then yeah, you have a problem, but your conceptual problem is almost certainly greater than the institution of features.
Re: So you both are right ... sort of.standing_dragonFebruary 2 2009, 20:42:52 UTC
I... so very agree. This:
And this brings us to the most important point (at least for me): for a MU to be successful it must be able to incorporate and manage change -- the telling of stories demands it. Static relationships, characters and settings are anathemas to a successful MU.
Is succinct, and dead on. I'd add - "In fact, it may be that staff's only reason for existence is to manage player-pushed change and to insert thematic drift when things are too static."
.... Let me also add that I am NOT averse to using thematic /NPCs/. Some are definitely jumping the shark (Darth Vader should never, ever, ever, ever appear in a Star Wars mush. No. Bad staff!) - but where the theme absolutely, no bones about it, requires these "Feature" characters to exist - then they should be held to the tighter constraints of NPCdom rather than released on the grid as a sort of superplayercharacterthemeguy. If you MUST have this kind of thematic anchoring, then have as few as possible, used as sparingly as possible.
If you can go down to the local bar and it just happens to be Han Solo's hangout... well. You got problems.
Please don't misunderstand - I /like/ RTA. These days, when I can play, it's the only place I do. I love the concept that every player is, de-facto, special, and has bearing on the theme. My personal experiences with "Features" therepon is a mixed bag, which is far better than it has been other places.
My focus, however, is always and forever on story. Features must, in my limited focus, therefore always be promoting, pushing, changing, and growing story - preferably by leveraging the other players around them, and making /their/ stories interesting. On RTA - I give incredible kudos to Benedict - who does this better than anybody.
Benedict /exists/ - and he anchors theme. He never, ever, ever, however, tells Benedict's story. He uses Benedict to help tell Peril's story, or Lucy's story, or Emma's story - Benedict, for all that he is a Prime Mover, moves by responding to the possibilities the players on the grid give him. He always has an eye toward making things interesting for as many people as possible, every single time he signs in... whether that's to visit a bar or to go to war in Pengali.
To me, the problems show up when Features forget that they exist for that purpose, and go on to treat these 'anchor characters' as PCs. I remember Masquerade, back in the day, and its insistence on using Canon characters from White Wolf's source. Canon characters that then never came out of a bedroom (... someone /please/ tell me how the undead have meaningful sex. Honestly. ANd tinysex kills grids. But this isn't /that/ discussion - ) or who insisted on constant, day to day play with personal ambition (this is /MY STORY/, said the Prince of Chicago) - well, this isn't what Features /do/. Or /are for/.
Player characters in positions of IC power have a responsibility to make roleplay accessible for the rest of the grid. That's hard enough - /Features/ have a responsibility to shepherd theme. How much more responsibility is that? Why /not/ make them NPCs, brought out when the situation warrants?
But high-end FCs as player characters, with all of the development and focus that that entails.. No. This is the traditional pattern of Features, and it never ends well.
Re: So you both are right ... sort of.basil_rtaFebruary 3 2009, 17:04:59 UTC
And there is where I have to disagree and point to the mantra that there can be no static characters -- setting propagated characters have to be included in this. While features have a primary thematic purpose (and I would argue that this purpose is more to promote the theme, preferably by example, than to shepherd it), they have to be played and with play comes change.
To leave features out on the island of no development, so to speak, misses the point. Everything on a MU should develop according to story. Does this mean you have to trust the players you put in charge of features to get it right ... sure, but that trust (and the ability to earn it and thus increase one's responsibility) is an essential component of a MU (right up there with the change thing). The endeavor of collaborative story telling necessitates that you trust someone else to influence your character. Edit your story. Touch your stuff.
So what if a feature gets it wrong? What if they become TS hounds or start to believe that all the other players are extras in their own epic tale? It is going to happen, but it happens with players of all stripes. The structure on a MU should be that the more you are willing to share play, the more play you get. As you become more ... self-centered, these are the players that need to be put on the island of no development, because these are the people that are not interested in developing and promoting the story. At least with a feature, the MU's staff has the ability to monitor and recast the part should a feature run off the rails.
All of this change very well means that players who come to a MU later in the play cycle (i.e. sometime after opening) may have some issues of dissonance. Hey, why does Benedict have two hands? But that is why we have wikis and logs and the ability to publish and distribute our story to these newcomers.
Scope - meaning the tapestry in which the game is set - is up to staff to set and enforce.
See, that's the thing - if you cannot have the setting without the features, then, frankly, the setting is a poor choice for a MUSH - simply because the features make the player characters irrelevant. However, you /can/ have Amber, for instance, without the features. You really can.
But - I've been around as long as you have, Cor - I'm certain. Star Wars was a joke on Amber, Amber was a joke on Star Wars. Everybody growled at WoD, and Dune ... well. The reason these settings become a 'joke' is because players have a comfort zone. Things they like - and since we all mine the same playerbase, well... I never played Amber before RTA because of a prejudice I picked up back in the days of Masquerade. So it goes. :)
Man. You and I could talk for hours on this - but I'll be honest with you - I find /features/ to be cardboard, 2-dimensional, unfun, and trite. You certainly /do/ have a handle on who's who.. because only the features get to be the 'who'. Everyone else is defined only by their relationship to those features.
Of course, I spend a lot of time on original-theme sites, and you'd think - in the end- they'd have the same problem of defining the movers-and-shakers and keeping things moving.. but they don't. And the same techniques an original-theme MUSH uses to make sure folks know who the people on the MUSH are, and who's in what position, can be used to push a non-original theme that lacks features in its scope.
We /know/ that a book exists to promote the story of its feature. That isn't the point of a MUSH. A /mush/ exists to promote the story of its players. If a book theme cannot stand without the features being present, then it is a poor choice for a MUSH theme, no matter how compelling the setting. However, if you can extract a decent setting and theme without the features taking a promenant role? Then you've got something.
If you cannot come up with stories in that universe that don't involve the characters you know from the books... then there are bigger problems. :)
Reply
I think you guys both have some of it right - as does RTA, at least in premise. Are features (being defined as characters taken directly from their representation in the source materials) absolutely necessary to successfully convey theme? No. That being said, if you are going to use a theme and not use the features, you better be able to take up the slack. Also, certain settings work better for this than others. I am not a huge Amber junkie (though I have played on a good number of Amber MUs), but I know it would be tough to explain the absence of /all/ of the good ol' Amber standbys if you used the Amber setting. And, even if you could come up with such a setting, you are begging the question ... why? What are you creating this big disconnect for? Is there going to be a correspondingly large pay-off for it? If you have the chops, go for it, but know you are taking a creative gamble. Compensate for it.
I am also, at this point going to back away from some of the blanket statements we have seen heretofore. There are great settings without features and god-awful ones with them, just as there are well-played features and ... less well-played features. In the end, all a feature is, is a tool -- one of many in the toolbox, that the designers of a MU can use to create a setting. Yes, features come with baggage, but they are also an enormously powerful tool to quickly establish theme and (for the lack of a better word) legitimacy. I'll note that the same could be said of a setting created in-game position which can be held by non-features; and by this reasoning almost all games have setting propagated (as opposed to player propagated) elements (I will mostly ignore, for the moment, the related argument that the title of something like "Jedi" is in many ways as much of a "feature" as that of "Luke", but I digress ...).
At its onset, RTA took as its core idea that all of its characters were awesome and that everyone can tell interesting stories. In a sense, we are all "features." I think we have all found that in practice this is a rewarding, if sometimes difficult to realize, ideal. I think it is only natural to still get a little antsy when Benedict enters the room with a sword at his belt or when Corwin starts getting all John Wayne'y, but that isn't neccesarily a bad thing.
The book features we do have were given a leg-up, but not an insurmountable lead. In fact, I would not be surprised if at this point certain player created characters have not overcome this initial deficit for their story-import and potential story-impact. Certainly, at this point features are not the only "who" on the board.
And this brings us to the most important point (at least for me): for a MU to be successful it must be able to incorporate and manage change -- the telling of stories demands it. Static relationships, characters and settings are anathemas to a successful MU. Just as players need some sort of a shared-basis (or understanding) to tell coordinated stories, they need to have the expectation that their stories can change things, and thus, in a game-sense, matter. If the features are unchanging/unchangeable centurions of the order of things .... then yeah, you have a problem, but your conceptual problem is almost certainly greater than the institution of features.
Reply
And this brings us to the most important point (at least for me): for a MU to be successful it must be able to incorporate and manage change -- the telling of stories demands it. Static relationships, characters and settings are anathemas to a successful MU.
Is succinct, and dead on. I'd add - "In fact, it may be that staff's only reason for existence is to manage player-pushed change and to insert thematic drift when things are too static."
.... Let me also add that I am NOT averse to using thematic /NPCs/. Some are definitely jumping the shark (Darth Vader should never, ever, ever, ever appear in a Star Wars mush. No. Bad staff!) - but where the theme absolutely, no bones about it, requires these "Feature" characters to exist - then they should be held to the tighter constraints of NPCdom rather than released on the grid as a sort of superplayercharacterthemeguy. If you MUST have this kind of thematic anchoring, then have as few as possible, used as sparingly as possible.
If you can go down to the local bar and it just happens to be Han Solo's hangout... well. You got problems.
Please don't misunderstand - I /like/ RTA. These days, when I can play, it's the only place I do. I love the concept that every player is, de-facto, special, and has bearing on the theme. My personal experiences with "Features" therepon is a mixed bag, which is far better than it has been other places.
My focus, however, is always and forever on story. Features must, in my limited focus, therefore always be promoting, pushing, changing, and growing story - preferably by leveraging the other players around them, and making /their/ stories interesting. On RTA - I give incredible kudos to Benedict - who does this better than anybody.
Benedict /exists/ - and he anchors theme. He never, ever, ever, however, tells Benedict's story. He uses Benedict to help tell Peril's story, or Lucy's story, or Emma's story - Benedict, for all that he is a Prime Mover, moves by responding to the possibilities the players on the grid give him. He always has an eye toward making things interesting for as many people as possible, every single time he signs in... whether that's to visit a bar or to go to war in Pengali.
To me, the problems show up when Features forget that they exist for that purpose, and go on to treat these 'anchor characters' as PCs. I remember Masquerade, back in the day, and its insistence on using Canon characters from White Wolf's source. Canon characters that then never came out of a bedroom (... someone /please/ tell me how the undead have meaningful sex. Honestly. ANd tinysex kills grids. But this isn't /that/ discussion - ) or who insisted on constant, day to day play with personal ambition (this is /MY STORY/, said the Prince of Chicago) - well, this isn't what Features /do/. Or /are for/.
Player characters in positions of IC power have a responsibility to make roleplay accessible for the rest of the grid. That's hard enough - /Features/ have a responsibility to shepherd theme. How much more responsibility is that? Why /not/ make them NPCs, brought out when the situation warrants?
But high-end FCs as player characters, with all of the development and focus that that entails.. No. This is the traditional pattern of Features, and it never ends well.
Reply
To leave features out on the island of no development, so to speak, misses the point. Everything on a MU should develop according to story. Does this mean you have to trust the players you put in charge of features to get it right ... sure, but that trust (and the ability to earn it and thus increase one's responsibility) is an essential component of a MU (right up there with the change thing). The endeavor of collaborative story telling necessitates that you trust someone else to influence your character. Edit your story. Touch your stuff.
So what if a feature gets it wrong? What if they become TS hounds or start to believe that all the other players are extras in their own epic tale? It is going to happen, but it happens with players of all stripes. The structure on a MU should be that the more you are willing to share play, the more play you get. As you become more ... self-centered, these are the players that need to be put on the island of no development, because these are the people that are not interested in developing and promoting the story. At least with a feature, the MU's staff has the ability to monitor and recast the part should a feature run off the rails.
All of this change very well means that players who come to a MU later in the play cycle (i.e. sometime after opening) may have some issues of dissonance. Hey, why does Benedict have two hands? But that is why we have wikis and logs and the ability to publish and distribute our story to these newcomers.
Reply
Leave a comment