Author Topic: Playability vs Gameplay  (Read 3382 times)

Greve

  • Posts: 200
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2020, 06:36:27 AM »
given how low the actual player counts are (players actually playing, versus people just idling on their mortal PCs) we're back to the situation as it was at the dawn of the MUD, where you really had to work super hard to find anyone to even talk to. Expanding out that play area to a second city state compounds that problem.

While I was never particularly fond of playing in Tuluk and wouldn't go out of my way to campaign for its reopening, I think the situation you describe can be attributed in large part to the city's closing. There are players online, there's just too few who make themselves available for roleplay, as you noted. That was a problem that began when the loss of one of the game's two city-states* took away many of the things that brought people out of their clan compounds and apartments. There's every chance that reopening Tuluk again would reverse this stagnation to some extent. It also might not, of course; but I think it's too simplistic to say that we can't have X because there's Y, even though Y was caused by a lack of X.

*and the subsequent lack of any real follow-up to such a major change

What the game needs is something big and impactful that causes something meaningful to happen, something that lasts instead of petering out again as soon as the fireworks are over. That doesn't need to be a return of Tuluk, but since a lot of the current issues can arguably be traced back to its closure, I think it's an obvious possibility. There are other options as well, but those would probably take a lot more work than something that revolves around game assets that already exist.

It also solves the elephant in the room that is the fact that the entire northern half of the game world is currently a bit pointless. The grasslands, the Grey Forest, the scrublands, the gypsy valley and surrounding mountains, these are some of the most interesting and well-made areas of the whole playing field but currently serve as nothing more than occasional hunting grounds for people who visit for half an hour to kill a few animals and then leave. Without a start location in the top half of Zalanthas (Morin's hardly counts), it's just empty space for the most part.

So yes, if we imagine a world where Tuluk reopens but nobody returns to the game and noone's playstyles change at all, that would have been a bad move. I just don't think that would be the outcome. If it reopens with some fanfare, like a declaration of war, I think it might be the very thing that this game is starved for.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 06:48:46 AM by Greve »

Harmless

  • Posts: 2863
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2020, 09:24:16 AM »
Important discussion thus far has yet to find a crux argument people seem to agree on. We are devolving to our usual foibles like open Tuluk. Don't open Tuluk. Etc.

Oh and if this discussion leads to somehow taking away magickers or nobles or any other isolating role I promise I will quit and never come back. I need isolation to enjoy the game at all because that fits my playstyle.

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.

The question of "I can do this, BUT..." usually discourages.

I can mug them, BUT I will be seen and then later recognized and hunted down, so instead I will kill them. (this problem is addressed in my PvP debate thread that focuses partly on restoring identity hiding abilities to foster conflict

I can get a warehouse BUT then I will become a target for GMH and bribe-demanding templars and be sucked bloodless. (There can be ways to redesign the high barriers to warehouse based indie groups, there might be incentives added to make it worth doing this; they conceivably exist like eventual minor house creation but at such huge cost of time and effort and with no guarantee, no minor goals, no actual tangible benefit in the short term. Just work work work and very deadly competition is gained.)

I can talk to this magicker BUT it will cost me politically and their own role restrictions will prevent them from ever helping me. (Maybe magickers need more freedom to do freelance work. Maybe the stigma needs some relaxing in a way. Maybe the pursuit of magickal power in Nakki culture can be more normal. Oashis do it but they are Oashis so nobody questions them -- but they keep that RP almost fully within Oash. I noticed a few other players trying to gain power via using magickers but I feel like it got discouraged out of happening due to the political backlashes or role restrictions.)

I can sell spice BUT it doesn't do anything good for the users and just creates risk. Again what is the point here? The Guild will hunt you if you are not Guild and if you are Guild your options of what or who to sell to are restricted.


.. i dunno if I am making sense here but what I am trying to say is that people are stopping conflict before it starts based on discouraging factors, depending on what venture we are talking about, which we might be able to change by changing norms of behavior, mechanisms of crime RP or incentives to hard work and lofty goals.

Useful tips: Commands |  |Storytelling:  1  2

Lizzie

  • Posts: 8223
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2020, 09:32:58 AM »
What I'm seeing from some of you is this, in Lizzie-speak:

"I love the game, but I hate everything about it. Let's change the theme, change the code, change the dynamics, ditch the murder corrupt betray, get rid of permadeath, and give roleplay points for roleplay which lets people skillup better."

There are already games that do all of that very well. They don't have as robust a roleplay engine and instead rely mostly on canned socials to interact, and others have little to no combat code at all.

This topic comes around the cycle every so often and the message is the same. This game is what it is, because that's how it was when it attracted a niche group of gamers years ago and made it successful then. It still attracts the same type of niche group, and as such it is the oldest still-running RPI in mud history.

The meta reward for good roleplay and leading fun plots is a better game. You're not looking for meta rewards. You're looking for skillups and shinies and points. That's not the point of Armageddon AT ALL.
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.

Narf

  • Posts: 903
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2020, 11:05:41 AM »
To the original poster I would like to say I strongly encourage this line of thought, but I think it would be constructive to come up with concrete ideas for individual players to pursue to improve the game world. Large scale code and world changes take a lot of time even if you manage to convince the preponderance of people in charge that they're desirable and worth dumping what they're currently working on to work on instead.

On the other hand a bored player could initiate a change in their behavior or begin a personal addition to the world tomorrow, and if it was seen as desirable by the player base it would likely be imitated and spread without costing efforts elsewhere.

One idea among probably a sea of others: Brainstorm more ways and reasons for conflict to have nonlethal consequences. One way a PC could do this is by starting a for-hire organization that harasses people, but for whatever reason doesn't or doesn't often take contracts to kill. If the organization managed to acquire enough influence to have the powers that be look the other way, and enough people that you couldn't end the harassment just by killing that one guy, it could serve to allow players to lighten up the stakes of a conflict. Obviously you'd have to do some finagling to figure out why your organization doesn't just knife all its problems when that's what everyone else does, but I think any creative storyteller could likely come up with something if they put their mind to it.

In the long run I would like to see some non-lethal consequences coded into the game, but I expect that would be a long time coming. I personally like the idea of making someone a pariah in a certain area, preventing NPC interaction scripts for a time within that area. (No I won't sell you those armguards, no I won't stable your mount, etc...).

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 991
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2020, 11:46:49 AM »
given how low the actual player counts are (players actually playing, versus people just idling on their mortal PCs) we're back to the situation as it was at the dawn of the MUD, where you really had to work super hard to find anyone to even talk to. Expanding out that play area to a second city state compounds that problem.

While I was never particularly fond of playing in Tuluk and wouldn't go out of my way to campaign for its reopening, I think the situation you describe can be attributed in large part to the city's closing. There are players online, there's just too few who make themselves available for roleplay, as you noted. That was a problem that began when the loss of one of the game's two city-states* took away many of the things that brought people out of their clan compounds and apartments. There's every chance that reopening Tuluk again would reverse this stagnation to some extent. It also might not, of course; but I think it's too simplistic to say that we can't have X because there's Y, even though Y was caused by a lack of X.

*and the subsequent lack of any real follow-up to such a major change

Gone are the days of players being in college computer labs, unable to tab out of their UNIX telnet app, spending 100% of their attention on the game, the entire time they were logged in, except for infrequent trips away from the keyboard for various needs.

Gameplay changed with the adoption of tabbed gaming environments on computers, where you could tell if something was happening in the game with a little flashing tab, but could otherwise be doing something else.

In the last decade another change in gameplay has occurred, with people playing from smartphones.  On inquiry why certain roles were basically AFK all the time in restricted areas, the answer I got multiple times was folks were on their phones.  They wanted to be available in some way, so they log in on a phone somewhere safe, and are basically just there to get psionic messages.

To some extent and most visible with Templars/Nobles/Sponsored GMH, folks not hanging out in public places like Traders Inn waiting for interaction, and thus open to a wide range of interaction types, to a shift of them hanging out in isolated spaces and waiting for psionic contact to initiate interaction, which limits the range of interaction types, can be attributed to gameplay differences due to different real world technology levels.  That is not going to be fixed by opening Tuluk.

My personal theory is that this has knock on affects to how thing play out in the game.  If you are idle a high percentage of time, I would guess you would use PK as a first resort more often, because you are vulnerable often.  If you aren't available for a wide range of interaction types, the creativity and quality of RP interaction suffers.  And so on.

Technology isn't swinging the pendulum back the other way right now, which means it is up to player behavior to do so, which I am sure game theory would predict issues with.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 11:55:49 AM by Brokkr »

Barsook

  • Posts: 8186
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2020, 11:51:06 AM »
To some extent and most visible with Templars/Nobles/Sponsored GMH, folks not hanging out in public places like Traders Inn waiting for interaction, and thus open to a wide range of interaction types, to a shift of them hanging out in isolated spaces and waiting for psionic contact to initiate interaction, which limits the range of interaction types, can be attributed to gameplay differences due to different real world technology levels.  That is not going to be fixed by opening Tuluk.

Do you think it's how huge the game world is or is it another problem?

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 991
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2020, 11:57:51 AM »
To some extent and most visible with Templars/Nobles/Sponsored GMH, folks not hanging out in public places like Traders Inn waiting for interaction, and thus open to a wide range of interaction types, to a shift of them hanging out in isolated spaces and waiting for psionic contact to initiate interaction, which limits the range of interaction types, can be attributed to gameplay differences due to different real world technology levels.  That is not going to be fixed by opening Tuluk.

Do you think it's how huge the game world is or is it another problem?

Not sure how you get there from what I said, so not sure I understand the question.  People are going to squirrel themselves away in isolated places if they are only looking at their phone once every fifteen minutes and only spending five minutes out of every hour engaged with the game, for instance.

Barsook

  • Posts: 8186
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2020, 12:02:23 PM »
Good point, times have changed.

number13

  • Posts: 1110
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2020, 02:38:00 PM »
Oh and if this discussion leads to somehow taking away magickers or nobles or any other isolating role I promise I will quit and never come back. I need isolation to enjoy the game at all because that fits my playstyle.

It's not so much about taking away isolated roles as it is opening up the possibility of interaction between active players.

To a certain extent, it can't be helped. A rebel sorc in a cave can't join the Byn and still be a rebel sorc in a cave. An Oash who idles all day in their estate isn't going to be popping down to the Mantis to slum with elves.

But there's no inherit narrative reason to disallow gemmed elementalists from joining Allanaki based clans. In the narrative, that's practically a flip of a switch -- you just say, "Grand Lord Templar Amos has declared that certain loyal gemmed now have leave to do X, Y, and Z." Speaking to a gemmed character doesn't have to be completely taboo.

There's no great reason to disallow dwarves from joining the militia, or elves even. In the kayfabe, you could just say whatever unit is active in game is the special reserves that are allowed to take in semi-useful garbage people.

Even in the Rinth, those mugger NPCs could be moved off to be deeper in the alleyways, and allow a 'safe' path for PCs to wander to a couple points of interest. (of course, the Rinth would then need some teeth for it's natives to be able to fight back against armored dwarves strolling around killing everything, but that's always been a problem.)

I don't know if those are specifically good ideas. Just saying there's artificial RP barriers set up that maybe could be knocked down a little. These barriers didn't exist at the very dawn of the game, nor did they really exist in the source material.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 02:43:13 PM by number13 »

Bebop

  • Posts: 4112
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2020, 02:42:59 PM »
My personal theory is that this has knock on affects to how thing play out in the game.  If you are idle a high percentage of time, I would guess you would use PK as a first resort more often, because you are vulnerable often.  If you aren't available for a wide range of interaction types, the creativity and quality of RP interaction suffers.  And so on.

Technology isn't swinging the pendulum back the other way right now, which means it is up to player behavior to do so, which I am sure game theory would predict issues with.

I don't think this is a technology issue when you have players and clans self-isolating.  It isn't just sponsored roles either.  The taverns have busy moments through happenstance and arranged RPTs but even the taverns are often bare.

Could this be because nobody feels safe in the taverns where interaction could take place?  The is a gameplay issue effecting playability.  The code makes it so people are afraid to go to places where they can interact.

Merchants that graduate to Crew Leader, Overseer, and Agent suddenly stop interacting on a lot of levels.  They have too much money, they often can buy their way of any disrespect they sling.  This is a game play issue.  There is not a reason for them to interact, and there is a reason for them to break social norms.

The Sun Runners are across the world, they can't come to Allanak because in all likelihood they'll die on the way or die once they get there.  The game world sets interaction up for failure.

You play a gemmed magicker, you can't really make non-gemmed friends easily.  There isn't much for you to do but cast, do work in Oash or turn up for a war.  The gameplay isn't lending itself to playability.

You play a noble.  You have no real objectives other than "do good in your House."  You aren't supposed to interact heavily or obviously with non-humans or other undesirables.  You can easily be murdered if you go out to a tavern to interact with "desirable" commoners because the code lends itself to you getting murdered before it lends itself to you getting to interact.  So let's say you do go out, and you act entitled and above the law.  There's no code to support that.  No one has to be afraid of you.  You RP'd prejudice?  Good job.  Here's the target for your back.

You're playing a Templar.  You have no war to fight with other PCs across the game world.  So now, you're bickering in Allanak with Templars.  But not like mildly, it's kind of all you have to do.  Unless you can scrounge a PVE war with the staff which is involved.  And takes forever.  Otherwise, you (like the nobles) are involved in high school level popularity squabbles that encourage being nice over being your character.

And in all of these cases its up to the players to just come up with reasons to interact a lot of the time.

These are not technology issues. They are areas the gameplay is failing to make the game more playable aka more enjoyable.

If people are isolating the game needs to do something to encourage them to stop.  There's an array of ways to go about this by creating incentives and consequences for those that aren't abiding by lore, aren't getting out to engage, and creating reasons built in that clans have things to do and need to cross paths and get resources from one another by building it into the plot and bridging that gap.

What I am seeing more and more is that characters that isolate, play nice with everyone (surface level or no), hoard resources are the characters that are permitted a place in the game.  Ironically, Allanak is becoming more and more like Tuluk because of this too.  This isn't a one off either, I could list numerous examples where the social norms are subverted and those trying to drive player conflict are shafted.  To me that states the obvious --- this has become the exception not the rule.

What reason would a desert elf have to come to Allanak?  What reason would a non-gemmed have to befriend a gemmed?  What reason does a noble have to do anything?  Templar same question?  To get a title?  And do what with it?  And how.  What's an Agent supposed to do when they become an Agent?  What reason do they have to interact anymore with anyone other than nobility here and there?  To build some stuff?  That's great, but it doesn't always translate into plot.  Why should someone with 100K coins in the bank care if Amos gets his bone sword?  When you peel it back there aren't a lot of clear objectives or enemies.  So everyone just ends up in-fighting, bickering and finding stupid reasons to PK.

There aren't enough reasons in the game for clans to clash, go to each other resources, or care about interacting with one another.  The world needs to build those.  I could easily play a desert elf that never went into a single civilization.  Same with any stalker really.  I could play a merchant or noble who never left my estate.  Right now the game is coddling and encouraging a lack of interaction instead of encouraging cross over and player driven conflicts.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 03:05:00 PM by Bebop »

number13

  • Posts: 1110
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2020, 02:47:08 PM »

Could this be because nobody feels safe in the taverns where interaction could take place?  The is a gameplay issue effecting playability.  The code makes it so people are afraid to go to places where they can interact.

That's almost certainly a problem. Apartments and taverns should be much, much safer for both person and property. I have no idea how to engineer it as such, but the current situation makes both locations almost useless for their intended functions.

Barsook

  • Posts: 8186
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2020, 02:55:43 PM »
Or, at least, in Allanak's case too many taverns/apartments splitting the PC population. But that's for gameplay reasons as it's a setting point not a playability point.

Narf

  • Posts: 903
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2020, 02:58:42 PM »
As to the tavern thing, I would actually ask people why they don't RP in taverns as much. The majority of us play nobodies who have no reason to worry about being taken out in a tavern. I've been playing nobodies in this game over twenty years and the only time I've ever lost a character in a tavern was because they were actively being pursued by the law before they went into the tavern.

As for others, I've seen more characters die in taverns because they typed "kick" instead of "hit" than I have due to ganking attempts.

I understand it's different for nobility, at least from what I've heard, but most of us don't play nobility so a lack of presence in taverns can't be explained solely by that.

That said, one thing I would like to see is a code change to make it impossible or extremely difficult to shoot arrows/throw knives through places that have tons of VNPCs (such as taverns).

Bebop

  • Posts: 4112
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2020, 03:02:23 PM »
As to the tavern thing, I would actually ask people why they don't RP in taverns as much. The majority of us play nobodies who have no reason to worry about being taken out in a tavern. I've been playing nobodies in this game over twenty years and the only time I've ever lost a character in a tavern was because they were actively being pursued by the law before they went into the tavern.

As for others, I've seen more characters die in taverns because they typed "kick" instead of "hit" than I have due to ganking attempts.

I understand it's different for nobility, at least from what I've heard, but most of us don't play nobility so a lack of presence in taverns can't be explained solely by that.

That said, one thing I would like to see is a code change to make it impossible or extremely difficult to shoot arrows/throw knives through places that have tons of VNPCs (such as taverns).

It's been a year now so I can talk about this.  My first character when I came back was a rinther.  A rando who I had never met, barely been playing the character a few days tossed throwing knives into the Gaj at a few people.  When my character ran they chased me all around town and almost killed me.  Don't know why.  But I do know my character wasn't safe in the Gaj or Red's and had to run to the gates since there were soldiers there.  Why would anyone sit at the taverns alone and wait for someone to show up when you can easily be killed within seconds and the current meta has devolved into PKing everyone for the most minute reasons possible.

My experience since my return has been pretty consistent with this kind of thing.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 03:08:56 PM by Bebop »

Brytta Léofa

  • Posts: 695
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2020, 03:18:22 PM »
Throw/shoot in populated areas should probably cause a crimflag. (I'm assuming it doesn't at present.)
Memento mori.

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 991
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2020, 04:50:41 PM »
stuff

I'm not saying that it is the only reason, but 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.

Krath

  • Posts: 2601
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2020, 05:04:55 PM »
A lot of things I agree with.

What she said. Seriously.
Armageddon is best when it's actually harsh and brutal, not when we're only pretending that it is.

number13

  • Posts: 1110
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2020, 05:38:02 PM »
I can mug them, BUT I will be seen and then later recognized and hunted down, so instead I will kill them.

There's ways around that. Lots. Believe it or not, bribes actually work. And being picky about your targets. And a few other tricks I can think of.

Think like an elf, and you can plunder a city blind, with few serious repercussions. It's actually too easy.

Quote
I can get a warehouse BUT then I will become a target for GMH and bribe-demanding templars and be sucked bloodless.

Maybe, but that's not the real problem you face. Dealing with GMHs and Templars is actually the fun half of the equation. Warehouses in Allanak are just big apartments, with the same security problems, and you can't even strike a deal with the Guild/whatever garbage elves are around to make it secure, because it's too easy for a criminal to come in from outside Allanak.

Any case, there's other places you set up warehouses, aside from Allanak itself, if don't want to deal with the templars/GMHs.

Quote
The Guild will hunt you if you are not Guild...

Unlikely, and that's actually a problem. The Guild has no teeth, unless staff specifically intervenes or a player has twinked up backstab.

There's absolutely a way to make spice smuggling (sort of) work in game. You just have to fit yourself into the established order of things (that doesn't necessarily mean joining the Guild). Sad to say, but it's a find out IC thing. Make a Rinthi and get to know how things work...even that is probably too much advice.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 05:45:45 PM by number13 »

Bebop

  • Posts: 4112
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #43 on: April 28, 2020, 08:44:55 PM »
I think the point Harmless is trying to make is that there are numerous dynamics that discourage player driven plots and I tend to agree.  Yes, there are exceptions to every rule.  But I get what they are generally saying.

Dresan

  • Posts: 1465
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2020, 08:26:24 AM »
-There was a time when staff supported player run plots only. This led to absolutely nothing noteworthy to happen in the world. People complained.
-When the staff was actively involved in massive out of this world plots. It felt like we were just by-standards with absolutely no way to shape the world. People complained

Previous experience has shown its a balancing act. And not an easy one. The staff need to be able to enact higher level plots that at the same time help facilitate personal plots and player drama. After the flood, Tuluk was dealing with the Kryl, there was a need for expeditions to cull the nests, or the need for resources to build fortifications and rebuild, it generated a lot of plots.

I think it has been mentioned before that with Tuluk in hibernation it has felt like there is no real threat for Allanak.  This makes some really cool plots seem rather lackluster and feel no different then just a random spider nest.

There have been a few solutions proposed but in general:
1. Allanak is too powerful, the VNPC power ceiling needs to come down to about Red Templar level to allow for allanak surroundings to pose more of a threat.
2. Bring Tuluk back. (Not necessarily open the city, but make it a much more visible source of conflict in the world (eg. bring back a couple tuluk nobles to luirs,etc)

Regardless of what approach is taken, it will allow plots to more easily generate demand and a feeling of threat if a demand is not met. That demand can take many forms as well, either demand for spies, thieves, raiders,crafters hunters and gatherers.

I believe to pretending a demand exists with no real goal or purpose tends to bore players, at least it does me. Take spice for example, without changes to make it more convenient and useful to players demand just feels imaginary at best. Sure, we still RP as if people (VNPCs) want it and such and some PC do buy it from time to time but for me it feels like a job without a real in-game purpose at the moment because we know its not something worthwhile to use.

Some final thoughts:
- I don't think GMHs need hunter/gather groups. Indy groups tend to form naturally when there are support and interesting reasons to do so.
 -I've always believed that Allanak's politics does not support indies or its groups very well. I see some effort being made, and not saying it needs to turn into Tuluk but political world and commoners  might as well exist in different games. The gap needs to close a bit.
- Much more love needs to be given to places such a redstorm and luirs to ensure they are worthwhile havens for people that have conflict in allanak. I also think the environment around Redstorm can be updated (with high magick if required) to better help playing in this area
« Last Edit: April 29, 2020, 08:34:05 AM by Dresan »
This message was brought to you by a fair weather player.

Malken

  • Posts: 9141
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2020, 11:02:01 AM »
I thought about giving the game another shot (haven't played in years) but this thread is definitely making me reconsider. Especially the most people are just idling in their private rooms part. Meh.
“When I was a fighting man, the kettle-drums they beat;
The people scattered gold-dust before my horse’s feet;
But now I am a great king, the people hound my track
With poison in my wine-cup, and daggers at my back.”

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 991
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2020, 11:09:46 AM »
Not most, but certainly certain types.

th3kaiser

  • Posts: 508
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2020, 11:22:23 AM »
Don't let this thread make it so you don't try Malken! You know how the GDB is, just because people are complaining about a thing doesn't mean the game isn't a ton of fun or that they're even remotely correct.


Lizzie

  • Posts: 8223
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2020, 12:19:07 PM »
Malken - once in awhile, if I know I can only be logged in for 1/2 hour or an hour, I'll sit in relative isolation and use that time to craft, or use the Way to "catch up" on things with people, deliver messages, receive messages, etc.

And sometimes, if my character's head is filled with people waying her, I'll put her in relative isolation so that *I* can pay attention without constant screen scroll of other people doing stuff.

And sometimes, I might just sit in relative isolation because I want to be available "just in case" but not feeling very sociable that day, as a player.

Most of the time though I'm interacting with folks. I think this is true even of many people who appear to be idle.

And then as Brokkr says - some people (a limited number) spend a lot of their time truly idle. Which, to me, means they're tabbing back and forth a lot and not really paying any attention to the game at all.

I don't see this as a regular thing, or a thing involving all that many players.
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.

Halcyon

  • Posts: 310
Re: Playability vs Gameplay
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2020, 03:08:24 PM »
I cant help but see the magicker in a cave, the unsociable northern hunter, and the estate bound noble as the same behavior.  All three have learned that the only way to survive the fellow player is to sometimes avoid them.

I would like to suggest we need more options to make impactful choices to a plot than just killing another pc.
Desert planet, your time has come. A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the universe.
- Dune