Author Topic: Playability vs Gameplay  (Read 3341 times)

Dresan

  • Posts: 1460
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #75 on: May 01, 2020, 03:31:37 PM »
My idea is literally geared towards a very specific type of character that should actually be 'worthy' of receiving some justice.

If some grebber dies in their apartment, no one should care. Similarly no one should care about petty crime for the most part (unless someone steel ring gets swiped or something)

If someone who works for a noble, is fucking a templar and is a reputable merchant to society is murdered then it should warrant an investigation with some more severe IC and very loudly broadcasted consequences.
This message was brought to you by a fair weather player.

Heade

  • Posts: 899
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #76 on: May 01, 2020, 04:39:29 PM »
Instead of using existing crimflags for non-guild thieves that rob apartments, maybe use an alternate type of crimflag that just crimflags them to guild NPCs. Then, add some guild enforcer NPCs in the rinth, rooftops, and other shady areas that generally patrol around hidden looking for people who have been identified as messing with guild business.

Different apartments in different areas could report witnessed breakins to different organizations. Higher end apartments might get you crim flagged with the arm, while lower end apartments might get you crim flagged with the guild. Others might be both. I think it'd be cool if the description of the room and area immediately around it mattered. If you break into an apartment from a high-traffic, high visibility area, or if it is easy for people outside to see into the apartment through open windows or something, being observed and thus crim flagged would be more likely. It would encourage people to read all of the descriptions for areas a bit more closely, and make the world feel a bit more alive.
I used to have a funny signature, but I felt like no one took me seriously, so it's time to put on my serious face.

Dresan

  • Posts: 1460
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #77 on: May 01, 2020, 04:58:11 PM »
I can live with 'VNPC'  way to help certain guilds and organization to better enforce protection money.

Though there are two conditions:

1. Protection money must have been paid
2. The victim must have reported it before its looked into.

Thus if the person has 100 hides and someone broke in to steal 1 hide, then there is a chance the victim wouldn't even notice and report it to whomever he is paying to protect their virtual goods.

This message was brought to you by a fair weather player.

number13

  • Posts: 1110
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #78 on: May 01, 2020, 05:58:01 PM »
There's no easy way for code to figure out how much value you took, or if you're authorized to be in the apartment even.

But lockpicking is concrete, clearly shady event.

Maybe it could be like a message pops up, "[You have done X. It's possible you were noticed. The militia might be notified via the Way.]

Then, after a random delay, there's a random chance that a VNPC witness informs a VNPC templar/guard. The chance could be based on the room in which the crime occurred. If you break into a fancy apartment complex meant for merchants and/or aides, then the alarm could be almost certain (like 90%), and occur pretty quickly, and any online PC templars get informed as well.

If it's a shitty low cost apartment, the alarm chance might be only 20%, and only occur after several minutes have past (if at all).

Same with pickpocketing. On the streets, at night, the chance is close to 0%. In shitty tavern, the chance might be 40% with a few minutes of lead time. In a fancy tavern, the chance could be 90% and happen within a single minute, with an additional broadcast to PC templars.

For attacking someone in an apartment, the chance of notification is nigh certain, with a lead time based on the location. To handle sparring, there could be some safe sparring rooms added to the game.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2020, 06:03:59 PM by number13 »

Blur

  • Posts: 218
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #79 on: May 01, 2020, 06:09:24 PM »
Not sure all this needs to be coded but that is just me.

Lotion

  • Posts: 58
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #80 on: May 01, 2020, 06:59:50 PM »
The problem with c-elves is once they are in a tribe, it's hard to justify kicking them. Whereas the Guild could police itself.
If a member of a tribe is acting in their own self interest at the detriment to the tribe then the tribe would "police itself" much in the same way The Guild does

mansa

  • Posts: 9875
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #81 on: May 01, 2020, 10:25:42 PM »
I don't think Playability and Gameplay are .. well..  defined enough to my likeness.

Quote
What parts of the game can we use the plot to reconcile the game world, using the plot to benefit playability?

I personally see areas in the world where there is a gap between gameplay (world, lore, setting, character structure) vs playability (how easy it is to play and enjoy the game.)  This manifests in a few ways.  Lack of interaction between pcs, this creates a reliance on staff to react as the game world.  The game world does not reflect the experiences of PCs, creating a lack of satisfaction and disassociation.

The karma docs encourage good game play but sometimes the game world punishes good, engrossing interaction and play.

I am asking the players - where do you see these gaps?  How can we bridge them to create a more satisfying game experience?


Let me reiterate if I understand it correctly.  Why do I enjoy ArmageddonMUD, if the gameplay often hampers my full enjoyment?  Is that right?


Quote
But how do we stop PCs and clans from just isolating and hoarding wealth and information in their respective Estates, tribes and Temples and get them out there clashing on micro and macro scale without constantly needing the staff to intervene and shake up the world like kicking over an anthill.

If we constantly need staff ran RPTs and HRPTs to get the world to come together, spend coin, tear down shit and interact there's a problem with the meta.  Those things are fun on occasion but we need gameplay that encourages good playability - meaning deep interactions instead of isolation.

And....   How do we get other players to play together?

Quote
... people absolutely go idle and barely play the game at all in protected spaces.  Lots.  More than lots.  Like with some roles I know with about 90% certainty which room they will be in if one of 5 other characters isn't on, without even looking, lots.  And that contributes to the other stuff.

Why do players stay in protected spaces?  I assume it's because they can be killed very easily, and it's one of the more popular gameplay aspects, as 'injury' requires staff intervention.  That goes down the conversation about different coded abilities of conflict.


Quote
I think what the key point is that we have a learned helplessness when creating drama. We have a very open world but it feels like every choice of ACTION leads to PREDICTABLE consequences that are generally plot ending.
Quote
We can all generate ideas on how to adjust the code that defines the boundaries of gameplay and roleplay.

One thing that I feel the culture of ArmageddonMUD is missing is the published stories of what is possible.  I feel we are missing out on sharing some of the storylines that we've have experienced, and I feel that if we shared some of the adventures in a polished format, players will be able to know what is possible out there. 

In my opinion, our website could use a fresh update, allowing some of the community aspects to be front and center of what the game can do for you.  I think players have a lack of options because they just don't know what's possible.
New Players Guide: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33512.0.html


You win Armageddon, congratulations!  Type 'credits', then store your character and make a new one

Barsook

  • Posts: 8181
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #82 on: May 01, 2020, 10:31:02 PM »
One thing that I feel the culture of ArmageddonMUD is missing is the published stories of what is possible.  I feel we are missing out on sharing some of the storylines that we've have experienced, and I feel that if we shared some of the adventures in a polished format, players will be able to know what is possible out there. 

In my opinion, our website could use a fresh update, allowing some of the community aspects to be front and center of what the game can do for you.  I think players have a lack of options because they just don't know what's possible.

Well said. As I already said, in another thread, the history and stories from a Kings Age feels lost.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2020, 10:55:34 PM by Barsook »

NinjaFruitSalad

  • Posts: 107
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #83 on: May 02, 2020, 10:24:11 AM »
Unfortunately, there's this thing about not being able to post about a character or events until a RL year has passed. And by then, who has the motivation to write something? Let alone remember all the details.

RogueGunslinger

  • Posts: 19162
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #84 on: May 03, 2020, 04:12:33 AM »
It seems to me that people isolate and avoid interaction to avoid death. When did everyone become so afraid of death in this game? I think everyone who liked playing multiple characters and getting into crazy scenarios with the risk of sudden death burned out on that. And everyone else left over are just the hardcore players who have only had 5 characters across 15 years of playtime.

Harmless

  • Posts: 2863
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2020, 09:13:28 AM »
Instead of using existing crimflags for non-guild thieves that rob apartments, maybe use an alternate type of crimflag that just crimflags them to guild NPCs. Then, add some guild enforcer NPCs in the rinth, rooftops, and other shady areas that generally patrol around hidden looking for people who have been identified as messing with guild business.


I like this idea, not sure how the subtleties can be coded but the idea of it is great. It might get me to play a burglar type again, after being so bored with the idea of them for many years.

It seems to me that people isolate and avoid interaction to avoid death. When did everyone become so afraid of death in this game? I think everyone who liked playing multiple characters and getting into crazy scenarios with the risk of sudden death burned out on that. And everyone else left over are just the hardcore players who have only had 5 characters across 15 years of playtime.

If I am not constantly staring at the screen I die because my character needs me as a player to be there to control their actions to be realistic. I have asked for things like automatic fleeing, a more complex engagement system besides >kill being an instantaneous act and such to help players who just can't maintain constant vigilance over a text based game. If you want players like that in game at all, either accept that they are going to join clans to hide in while they are less than fully attentive or just accept that they're not going to play a game where one moment of idleness lands them the permanent loss of their character and their story.

I isolate to CONTINUE interaction, yes, and in doing so prevent an unsatisfying death.

I guess what I am saying is I agree with you, RGS, it is bad to isolate all day. But the code doesn't allow me, as a player who the community has labeled "casual" over these habits, to do much else and still tell the story. If I don't mind a story coming to an abrupt halt then I relax those habits, but since my characters' stories are almost always soon entwined with that of others I do as I do.

My pvp gripe threads address the 'whys' in isolating behavior more with codeable solutions.

Finally please note that just because I do this idling doesn't mean I don't RP and get PKed. In fact I can happily report the majority of my deaths over the last two RL years were to PK. When I get PKed I consider that a sort of "win" as it usually builds on the plotlines going around more than NPC death or storage.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2020, 09:52:02 AM by Harmless »
Useful tips: Commands |  |Storytelling:  1  2

Riev

  • Posts: 5722
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #86 on: May 04, 2020, 09:54:13 AM »
It seems to me that people isolate and avoid interaction to avoid death. When did everyone become so afraid of death in this game? I think everyone who liked playing multiple characters and getting into crazy scenarios with the risk of sudden death burned out on that. And everyone else left over are just the hardcore players who have only had 5 characters across 15 years of playtime.

Overall culture changed when some people were told (or are of the idea) that plots will not be given the support they need from staff, unless the PC in question is "established". It matters less what you've done in your first month of play, and more that "You need to be around longer before staff puts forth the effort to assist with that".

I am of that idea, because I have seen it, in writing, from a staff who said "It does not matter what you've done, you need to be around, as a PC, for longer than you have been. We don't know if you'll die in the middle of the plot".

So now it is less that I need to be codedly capable of handling the combat, but I need to be a staple in the PC community before staff will assist me. Is that true? Not 100%, some staff will help you right out of chargen. But it powers my desire to not interact with people who may want to kill me until I am at a point where staff might notice me, senpai.
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

triste

  • Posts: 282
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #87 on: May 04, 2020, 10:39:56 AM »
It seems to me that people isolate and avoid interaction to avoid death. When did everyone become so afraid of death in this game? I think everyone who liked playing multiple characters and getting into crazy scenarios with the risk of sudden death burned out on that. And everyone else left over are just the hardcore players who have only had 5 characters across 15 years of playtime.

Overall culture changed when some people were told (or are of the idea) that plots will not be given the support they need from staff, unless the PC in question is "established". It matters less what you've done in your first month of play, and more that "You need to be around longer before staff puts forth the effort to assist with that".

I am of that idea, because I have seen it, in writing, from a staff who said "It does not matter what you've done, you need to be around, as a PC, for longer than you have been. We don't know if you'll die in the middle of the plot".

So now it is less that I need to be codedly capable of handling the combat, but I need to be a staple in the PC community before staff will assist me. Is that true? Not 100%, some staff will help you right out of chargen. But it powers my desire to not interact with people who may want to kill me until I am at a point where staff might notice me, senpai.

"Is that true? Not 100%"

Yeah I just want to echo this isn't 100% the case and it hasn't been true for me. Ironically my longest lived characters seem to get stonewalled plot wise the most, and the only character I've had who permanently changed the game world was only in play 1 IRL week.

To speak to how this character managed to change things with just one week of play -- she was just in the right place at the right time and was able to fill a niche. In the end, I genuinely believe that staff want to support plots that "make sense," and given their limited volunteer time available to do things like NPC animations they probably consider other factors such as the number of players who will be influenced by or benefit from a plot, etc. In this case only being in play a few IRL days didn't prohibit my involvement because all the other pieces were there (the plot made sense and tied in well to a larger plot, it involved a number of other players, etc).

Therefore:
- being "long lived" is a function that often results in being "established" and "mattering more"
- being "established" is a function often resulting in more people being involved in your plots, AKA "successful plots" involving lots of people.
- However, "successful plots" involving lots of people are not only achieved by longevity and being established per example above.

At the end of the day I am a little concerned that we all are getting too hung up on the "right way" to play which is why I am glad Riev brought up this point and framed it that way. More experienced players often have internalized rules like "You need to be around longer before staff puts forth the effort to assist with that," but where do these rules come from? Nowhere, they aren't actual rules.

Last note is I do not think it is a coincidence that two of the most successful Byn Sergeants I've known in game were actually played by new players who didn't really have the mechanics mastered at the time. They probably didn't have internalized and not-always-true notions like "You need to be around longer before staff puts forth the effort to assist with that," and when you think about it there isn't really any utility to having a mindset like this. Per OP, focusing more on story telling and how to tell good stories should be our goal.

Last note is, to be fully transparent, that longevity IS a criteria for sponsored roles, I have been consistently denied roles recently for this reason. After getting this feedback, I admit my thought process was "time to play a boring, risk averse character!" So it's funny to get a critique about longevity from staff [especially as someone who often plays villains], and then to come here and see players say "actually, boring risk averse characters suck, here is a whole thread about it." At the end of the day we have no clear guidelines around getting leadership roles, we have no clear guidelines getting plot support, etc, leading to multiple mega-threads on the GDB and Discord about it. Currently the only way to get clarification on criteria for plots and roles is to submit a request: when in doubt, submit a request, you have maybe a 20% chance of your plot coming true or getting that role you always wanted; the odds of getting staff support here aren't terrible compared to basically any other application process IRL.
will do my best to maintain https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/, message me if something there needs an update.

Lizzie

  • Posts: 8222
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2020, 04:21:51 PM »
You don't have to be risk-averse, to have a long-lived character. I don't know where this comes from. Most of my characters have taken some pretty serious risks, and lived to tell about it. But, if by "risk" you mean "playing an asshole whose purpose in life is to piss people off" - then yeah I definitely try to avoid playing that kind of character. If by "risk" you mean "playing an idiot who spends all their starting coins on a silt skimmer and sails off hoping to find fame and fortune without a game-plan" then sure - I avoid those kinds of risks too.

You don't have to play the snowflake, in order to play an interesting, interested character who gets involved in plotlines and lives through them. The staff needs to know that a sponsored role applicant is CAPABLE of having their sponsored role last awhile. The best way to measure their capability, is to look at their past. If they've had a couple of long-lived characters in the past that actually got involved in things, then that player is going to get a closer look. If your longest-lived character was a RL month and only because you were on a cruise ship for 2 weeks and couldn't play, then probably not so much.
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

triste

  • Posts: 282
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2020, 04:38:17 PM »
You don't have to be risk-averse, to have a long-lived character. I don't know where this comes from. Most of my characters have taken some pretty serious risks, and lived to tell about it. But, if by "risk" you mean "playing an asshole whose purpose in life is to piss people off" - then yeah I definitely try to avoid playing that kind of character. If by "risk" you mean "playing an idiot who spends all their starting coins on a silt skimmer and sails off hoping to find fame and fortune without a game-plan" then sure - I avoid those kinds of risks too.

You don't have to play the snowflake, in order to play an interesting, interested character who gets involved in plotlines and lives through them. The staff needs to know that a sponsored role applicant is CAPABLE of having their sponsored role last awhile. The best way to measure their capability, is to look at their past. If they've had a couple of long-lived characters in the past that actually got involved in things, then that player is going to get a closer look. If your longest-lived character was a RL month and only because you were on a cruise ship for 2 weeks and couldn't play, then probably not so much.

I don't think accusations of "snowflake," "asshole," characters played by people riding cruise ships pertains to anyone who's posted in this thread.

At the end of the day what matters is engaging stories and plot lines. Proscriptions of "how to roleplay" often aren't helpful at all. Again I've seen brand new players rise to leadership positions and do better than veterans sponsored to do the same role because at the end of the day we care about good stories and good story telling. Good roleplay is our primary metric for karma accrual, etc. Longevity is one of those metrics, but there are many. And even given the existence of these metrics, they should not (ideally, per OP) shape or limit story telling, because storytelling and RP are our main goal here. If laws and proscriptions defined the creative process more generally, we wouldn't have the novels we have today; same applies here.

The beauty of Armageddon is the limited subset of rules and policies, and the creative flexibility surrounding that.

I dread to think players might ever think "Oh, I shouldn't do this thing even if it is completely in character because I want this character to survive for OOC reasons like karma accrual." Focusing on the plot and characters ultimately leads to a more meaningful experience for all involved.
will do my best to maintain https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/, message me if something there needs an update.

Is Friday

  • Posts: 6508
    • My Twitch Channel
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #90 on: May 04, 2020, 04:42:45 PM »
I've been turned down for sponsored roles before because I was considered to be "high burn out". Meaning that my leader PCs burn brightly for 3-6 RL months before either self-destructing or getting ganged up on and made dead.

But then they accepted someone who died within a RL month instead of me so I chuckled about the irony.

Overall, though -- I've played a lot of leaders. I'm pretty sure simply because I apply a lot, so by virtue of probability.
And then I sat there going "really? that was it? that's so stupid."

I still think the best closure you get in Armageddon is just moving on to the next character.

BadSkeelz

  • Posts: 8502
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #91 on: May 04, 2020, 05:32:25 PM »
#1 criteria for sponsored roles is playtimes anyway. Staff don't care how good or bad you are, so long as you're online consistently.
janeshephard: You really think BadSkeelz understands the concept of Wine In Front of me? This guy shot me as a townie when he felt threatened. The man's a neandrathal.

Miradus: He's not some weird mental abomination. He's just a guy on the internet.

triste

  • Posts: 282
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #92 on: May 04, 2020, 06:29:10 PM »
Overall, though -- I've played a lot of leaders. I'm pretty sure simply because I apply a lot, so by virtue of probability.

And frankly this mindset and interpretation is better than a lot of interpretations of what "one must do" to succeed with whatever role or plotline you are going for.

My friends/family/colleagues all make fun of me for being an "overachiever," and people who like to achieve generally like clear parameters for success. However after trying to get these parameters it became clear they are not strictly defined for a reason. An applicant known "burn out" like you mention here might still be the best pick in a set of applicants. Therefore shaping your roleplay to satisfy imagined criteria might just mean shooting yourself in the foot.

We are here to have fun and the only way to "win" is to help create good stories. I would rather see a variety of character concepts rather than a limited set of cautious concepts. Focus on the roleplay, not OOC concerns like "But if my rogue gick stops being iso people will sniff her out and kill her!" Yes, they probably will, but if your gick is also a humanoid and maybe she can't sit in that cave all the time and she needs to leave the cave to get some sunlight and some god damned vitamin D. It is like the phenomenon of people carrying 10 logs to maximize their encumberance for sweet skill gainz; staff saw this and adjusted the code. But the awesome thing is code adjustments aren't even necessary in some cases, you can just... focus on good RP and storytelling instead!

#1 criteria for sponsored roles is playtimes anyway. Staff don't care how good or bad you are, so long as you're online consistently.

And again even this varies, as some role calls mention off peak or lower playtimes are OK, etc.

I have told a few new players this but: have fun, focus on building fun plots with fun people; karma, roles, and all that crap will come as a side effect.
will do my best to maintain https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/, message me if something there needs an update.

NinjaFruitSalad

  • Posts: 107
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #93 on: May 04, 2020, 10:19:22 PM »
You don't have to be risk-averse, to have a long-lived character. I don't know where this comes from. Most of my characters have taken some pretty serious risks, and lived to tell about it.

But by definition, if your characters have taken some pretty serious risks, then clearly, you have had some pretty extraordinarily good luck befall you ..  or, those risks might not be so dire as you make them out to be. In any case, this just sounds like anecdotal evidence.

---

Actually, there's been a lot of anecdotal evidence around discussions in the GDB. These aren't valid arguments. Just because you happened to be lucky enough to have X happen to you, or pull something off, that hardly matters when the vast majority of people have experienced something different.

Lizzie

  • Posts: 8222
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #94 on: May 04, 2020, 10:56:00 PM »
You don't have to be risk-averse, to have a long-lived character. I don't know where this comes from. Most of my characters have taken some pretty serious risks, and lived to tell about it.

But by definition, if your characters have taken some pretty serious risks, then clearly, you have had some pretty extraordinarily good luck befall you ..  or, those risks might not be so dire as you make them out to be. In any case, this just sounds like anecdotal evidence.

---

Actually, there's been a lot of anecdotal evidence around discussions in the GDB. These aren't valid arguments. Just because you happened to be lucky enough to have X happen to you, or pull something off, that hardly matters when the vast majority of people have experienced something different.

But when someone says "you have to" X "in order to achieve" Z and at least one person has experienced something contrary to that statement, then the statement ceases to be true. You don't "have" do do that, in order to achieve this.

Extreme risks: I played a Red Fang for over 6 RL months. It doesn't get much riskier than that. I played an ungemmed rukkian who was found out by the Red Fangs (before I ever played one), and ended up allied with them instead of being killed by them. I played an ungemmed whiran who was discovered by not one, but TWO defilers - and not only lived to tell about it, but ended up getting sucked up into some amazing adventures, lost her affinity to Whira, got the spells back but had to gather in order to use them, and STILL lived (until I landed one day in front of a spider den because I miscalculated). I've also played dozens of political roles, and just playing those roles are risky, by definition.

« Last Edit: May 04, 2020, 10:58:44 PM by Lizzie »
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

Lotion

  • Posts: 58
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #95 on: May 05, 2020, 01:49:17 AM »
people are extraordinarily lucky
I have definitely survived some things I definitely shouldn't have on one character because something impossible happened. If a small miracle can enrich the story told by a PC's life I think it's a case of one of those million to one things that will happen every single time.

Shabago

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 435
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #96 on: May 05, 2020, 10:38:22 AM »
Pretty cool thread, all and all. I'm game to jump in for a bit more staff perspective ala OP request. - Good a place as any to start:

Quote
This is my biggest point, and I know this post was a bit long.

But how do we stop PCs and clans from just isolating and hoarding wealth and information in their respective Estates, tribes and Temples and get them out there clashing on micro and macro scale without constantly needing the staff to intervene and shake up the world like kicking over an anthill.

If we constantly need staff ran RPTs and HRPTs to get the world to come together, spend coin, tear down shit and interact there's a problem with the meta.  Those things are fun on occasion but we need gameplay that encourages good playability - meaning deep interactions instead of isolation.

We shouldn't constantly rely on staff to know how the population at large is reacting, we should see that reflected more predominantly visible through the play of the PCs.

Well, on the most basic of levels - you can't. You can't make someone 'share', because it ties right back into the 'Want to win' mindset. If X PC knows about Y and no one else does, they have power. They like power. It makes them feel important or superior. As staff, we get a choice. We can either make that information leak in some fashion, if ICly sensible (VNPCs overhearing/seeing) or we can hope the PC in question goes about sharing in one way or another to include more people in the story.

Sometimes, staff bleeding said information results in blowback. Why? Because said PC was 'Planning to use said information for Y' or 'We've taken away some of their influence' or a stack of other reasons. Sometimes, PCs attempting to share said information gets them killed/end of story or sometimes it's not spread 'fast enough' to the liking of other players, etc etc. Days end, it really won't matter which option is picked on this level, as someone isn't going to be happy.

The onus, once things get to a point in whatever plot or story line, 9/10 will fall on staff by way of RPTs/HRPTs when it involves things over and above the 'Daily drama' of any PC against another imo. Example;

= House Oash has come across a powerful artifact that has the ability to negate the powers/kill a Red Robe. Only one PC knows about it/found it/wants to use it.

- At this stage, staff can't or shouldn't do anything. Leave the player time to form their plot/plan/story.

= Said PC has actively begun to tinker with said object and is likely half-way down the path to using it.

- At this stage, the PC should've let something leak. They have another PC (or three) that were brought in for their experience/knowledge on said item to help (or hinder). If not, this is where staff generally need to step in. Where was/is the item stored? Did a guard see and whisper to another Noble/Aide? Does the thing radiate some sort of magickal power that a Templar may detect? Does it make people sick to be around? Something that would feasibly cause the thing to be known beyond 1 single PC.

= Said PC is about to use said item.

- At this stage, there has been time for 3-4 wagging tongues to whisper to their best-pals/concubines/aides and now 10 to 15 players know that something is up. If not, at this point staff need to start further spreading some sort of realistic push-back, while supporting said plot. Chances to be caught/discovered, that VNPC has now told his cousin over a bottle of Brown and that cousin works for a Templar who comes sniffing about. Rumor post, perhaps, to further show the ripple affect of said whispers. - Same outcome of various PCs 'in the know'.

= Item is used/prevented from being used by player agency.

If used - Staff assisted RPT. If not used/prevented by other players - Losing is still a story and a bunch of players had a blast along the way.

Quote
I also see a symptom that something is wrong when players who follow the documentation are punished when they actually enter the game and the game itself is not reflective of the documentation resulting in everyone constantly turning a blind eye to player after player engaging with the exception instead of the rule.

If people are getting flak for following the documentation, that should absolutely be reported to staff so it can be addressed.
Nessalin: At night, I stand there and watch you sleep.  With a hammer in one hand and a candy cane in the other.  Judging.

Shabago

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 435
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #97 on: May 05, 2020, 10:56:18 AM »
Quote
If you don't have a place in the game for "zesty" characters then you have a game that treats these characters as little road bumps on the journey and you become reliant on staff for creating the larger conflict potentially.  And I don't just mean characters that say... kill your buddy, so now you want revenge.  I'm talking about characters that aren't interested in doing something as simple as not being nice to everyone since the docs states there should be clear bias and prejudice.

If every character that isn't buddy buddy with everyone is shunned or killed, you're creating a meta where everyone has to get along (aka ignore the docs that call for clear prejudices) or at least get along at a surface level.  If everyone in Allanak is pretending to get along on a surface level and stabbing each other in the back in the shadows, well... now you've got a new version of Tuluk.

Agreed.

If it isn't bad enough to warrant a death, then a death shouldn't be happening. I've not seen and really hope I will continue to not see people getting PK'd over IC bias/racism, etc. I will, however, gleefully get a bag of popcorn to watch a few AoD/Byn members pound the ever loving crap out of someone in a Gaj brawl, because they were seen kissing some breed (gross), or a viv and ruk utterly shunning a Krathi for being seen to work with a Nilazi outside the gates, or a thief getting their hand cut off/exiled from the City, or a lippy PC getting their lips stitched shut for an IG week or two/whipped/cuddled until their arms pop out of the sockets and so on and so on.

I will further applaud a /PK/ when it meets a realistic bar in the day to day life of a PC attempting to survive in the harsh Known that exists. If someone is actively trying to kill you/killed your pal/is just plain deranged and on a kill spree in some regard - Nuke 'em. You're trying to raid and they get all badass at you? Dead. One small resource needed to survive and they keep coming back after you warned them/beat them/chased them off - Dead. Too stupid to learn.

Reinforcing the above - killing is absolutely appropriate when realistic for your PC. Could you let that would-be badass survive during your raid attempt? Sure. Should you? Probably not. Why? What raider in the Known would realistically ride up on someone, give them chances to comply/live and then take a barrage of abuse/disrespect, smile and ride off? Nicest one I've ever seen. Nice doesn't really apply in the game-world.

Hate being raided? Hell, who doesn't? Consider using your brain over your mouth, toss your coin pouch over and then go back to the city, round up your pals and then go be as lippy as you like when you beat them into dust and take your stuff back. (Plot/conflict?) rather than you being a corpse.

Sure, I can see where some will say 'But the raider could've just beat them down and took it for being lippy and left them to crawl back to the city for a plot/story.'

Also valid and true. They could. They also don't have to, because the game is harsh and if their PC would realistically turf someone mouthing off? Then they should stay in character.
Nessalin: At night, I stand there and watch you sleep.  With a hammer in one hand and a candy cane in the other.  Judging.

triste

  • Posts: 282
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #98 on: May 05, 2020, 11:12:02 AM »
The onus, once things get to a point in whatever plot or story line, 9/10 will fall on staff by way of RPTs/HRPTs when it involves things over and above the 'Daily drama' of any PC against another imo. Example;

= House Oash has come across a powerful artifact that has the ability to negate the powers/kill a Red Robe. Only one PC knows about it/found it/wants to use it.

- At this stage, staff can't or shouldn't do anything. Leave the player time to form their plot/plan/story.

= Said PC has actively begun to tinker with said object and is likely half-way down the path to using it.

- At this stage, the PC should've let something leak. They have another PC (or three) that were brought in for their experience/knowledge on said item to help (or hinder). If not, this is where staff generally need to step in. Where was/is the item stored? Did a guard see and whisper to another Noble/Aide? Does the thing radiate some sort of magickal power that a Templar may detect? Does it make people sick to be around? Something that would feasibly cause the thing to be known beyond 1 single PC.

= Said PC is about to use said item.

- At this stage, there has been time for 3-4 wagging tongues to whisper to their best-pals/concubines/aides and now 10 to 15 players know that something is up. If not, at this point staff need to start further spreading some sort of realistic push-back, while supporting said plot. Chances to be caught/discovered, that VNPC has now told his cousin over a bottle of Brown and that cousin works for a Templar who comes sniffing about. Rumor post, perhaps, to further show the ripple affect of said whispers. - Same outcome of various PCs 'in the know'.

= Item is used/prevented from being used by player agency.

If used - Staff assisted RPT. If not used/prevented by other players - Losing is still a story and a bunch of players had a blast along the way.

Staff feedback like this is always great, and specifically players have asked for an outline of "how to have a successful player run plot" like this so thank you!

This also gets at the main thing I was trying to say and back up in OP's comments -- that our goal should be telling good stories and involving players. I like the parts of this outline talking about parts of the plot that gets "leaked" and how that this can and should lead to a greater number of players knowing. Doing stuff, like revealing parts of your plot, can be risky, and get you PKed. But ideally it won't so the onus is in large part on us as players to fight the instinct to hoard and hide away and actually involve people. That is how you can even eventually get support behind your plot [if not from staff, then from other players].
will do my best to maintain https://tristearmageddon.github.io/arma-guild-picker/, message me if something there needs an update.

Shabago

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 435
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #99 on: May 05, 2020, 11:32:44 AM »
#1 criteria for sponsored roles is playtimes anyway. Staff don't care how good or bad you are, so long as you're online consistently.

Quite false.
Nessalin: At night, I stand there and watch you sleep.  With a hammer in one hand and a candy cane in the other.  Judging.