Author Topic: Armageddon is a Social game.  (Read 1653 times)

tapas

  • Posts: 349
Re: Armageddon is a Social game.
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2018, 12:17:29 PM »
Then you've got Vex and yourself having a passive-aggressive exchange in regards to my question from earlier.

And I asked about the "asshole herd" you referred to be because what I've seen over my 10 plus years of time in the game is people get their OOC preferences and expectations and then proceed to take it out on people IG instead of being open to ideas and plot lines.  So I was a bit concerned as to what constitutes this for you.

It was a slight bit of cheeky, but hardly passive.

It's passive aggressive.

Riev

  • Posts: 5202
Re: Armageddon is a Social game.
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2018, 03:34:51 PM »

So we have a game about social collaboration where you get punished for collaborating socially. It's really no wonder why some players would rather just decide to avoid other players entirely.



This is very pertinent. Due to the nature of the game, the more social you are, the more difficult and frustrating the game becomes. Setting aside the need to update staff, waiting a week before getting responses, and the administrative portion of the game... just collaborating socially with other players becomes frustrating. If your concept requires the input of another person, or the plot line you are pursuing needs that person to log in or be free enough to talk to you, frustration occurs.

Conversely, if your goals are to live out in the Wastes, be solo, and only interact with other PCs as a passing "Hey you're here too? I'll go to the other side, then"... you're bound to have less frustration. However, you won't be able to do anything but interact with the code of the game, and it loses the dynamic reaction.
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

cnemus

  • Posts: 155
Re: Armageddon is a Social game.
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2018, 06:05:49 PM »
My personal strategy for addressing some of the complications of social play is to focus on opportunity as opposed to dependency. Yes, if you absolutely must rely on x to do y, then we find frustration. If however x is only a way to augment y and we can do z no matter what, then the story (even a social one) can move forward regardless. Each PC interaction or staff request can be an opportunity to enhance a given story, but if at all possible I avoid making any single piece essential to anything.

I structure my goals from the outset with this in mind to avoid those frustrating situations.
Quote from: Kalaziel
Just remember, the code is there to support your RP not the other way around  :)

Bebop

  • Posts: 3790
Re: Armageddon is a Social game.
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2018, 04:07:34 PM »

So we have a game about social collaboration where you get punished for collaborating socially. It's really no wonder why some players would rather just decide to avoid other players entirely.



This is very pertinent. Due to the nature of the game, the more social you are, the more difficult and frustrating the game becomes. Setting aside the need to update staff, waiting a week before getting responses, and the administrative portion of the game... just collaborating socially with other players becomes frustrating. If your concept requires the input of another person, or the plot line you are pursuing needs that person to log in or be free enough to talk to you, frustration occurs.

Conversely, if your goals are to live out in the Wastes, be solo, and only interact with other PCs as a passing "Hey you're here too? I'll go to the other side, then"... you're bound to have less frustration. However, you won't be able to do anything but interact with the code of the game, and it loses the dynamic reaction.

As usual I agree with, Riev (and tapas apparently!)

I think a lot of this could be alleviated by allowing players to strive for senior roles and leadership positions once more.  I also believe that things should be more player, IG driven instead of so much administrative red tape being required for leadership roles.  It often times feels a bit contrived and thankless on both an IG and OOC level.  I don't think it promotes fresh growth.  It creates stagnation and limits the feeling of possibility when everything needs to go through a staff filter instead of approachable IG PC leaders.

Having come back I feel a lot more stress regarding the social dynamics of the game than I ever have prior.  Before the game was effortlessly fun.  Now it seems a bit of a struggle to perpetuate interest and zeal.  But I feel like I'd have to regurgitate points I've already attempted to make in other threads if I went on.

Edited to Add - I will say I like staff more than I've ever liked staff before.  I just don't think it's healthy for the game to be so reliant upon them and I had always thought the intent had been to get away from staff reliance.  Upon my return the game seems more heavily staff reliant than ever.