Self-Sufficiency

[Aaron Goulet]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like a lot of players have been looking for the ability to play more self-sufficient (skill-wise) characters as of late.  This got me to thinking...  What are the pros and cons?  Would more self-sufficiency add to or detract from the game?



I spent some time thinking about it this morning and have formed some loose opinions on the matter, but for the sake of discussion, I'd love to hear yours too.  This is what I have concluded so far:

While self-sufficiency feels good and eliminates the incredible annoyance that sometimes comes with waiting for "that one PC", it gives characters less reasons to interact.  As it stands now, I have witnessed a lot of PCs that don't bother interacting with other PCs unless they want/need something.  There's nothing wrong with playing the strong, silent types (I've done it myself), but if we were to make PCs even more self-sufficient, I fear that Armageddon might become less socially interactive (and as a side-effect, more code-driven).

I found this quote from Angela Christine in an old thread on getting involved in plots, and I think she said it better than I:

You may like to be self-sufficient, but needy people have more plot hooks for others to latch on to.  People like to be needed.  Many people like to have someone at their mercy, someone who owes them.  Some people like to play the knight in shining armor, like to "rescue" others, and in doing so earn their eternal gratitude. 

[valeria]

I think it's possible to play a pretty self-sufficient character, but if you want to get some things done, you're going to need other people.  I think this is a good balance.  But playing completely socially isolated characters really isn't my thing, so I tend to bias toward considering things that get people interacting as positive.

[Spoon]

In the context of this thread, what exactly is self sufficient? PCs with access to a wide range of/all skills? All classes are capable of looking after themselves, so I assume that isn't it.

One of the benefits of the class system that I like is this fact that players depend on each other and classes have distinct advantages and disadvantages. I personally like class-based systems because the are restrictive. I like having to find someone who can pick locks, make poison, repair armor etc.

[Aaron Goulet]

In the context of this thread, what exactly is self sufficient? PCs with access to a wide range of/all skills? All classes are capable of looking after themselves, so I assume that isn't it.

This is a good point.  To clarify, I mean self-sufficient in the sense that characters don't need to rely on other characters for (most) things, meaning, as you said, having access to a wide range of skills.

One of the benefits of the class system that I like is this fact that players depend on each other and classes have distinct advantages and disadvantages. I personally like class-based systems because the are restrictive. I like having to find someone who can pick locks, make poison, repair armor etc.

Good point-based systems can be self-regulating as well; they just go about it a different way.  I have a point-based system in my head (which I've been meaning to type as a document for some time) that does this very nicely.  For the current incarnation of the game though, I am inclined to agree with you.

I think it's possible to play a pretty self-sufficient character, but if you want to get some things done, you're going to need other people.  I think this is a good balance.

I agree.

[Barzalene]

My pcs like to -feel- self sufficient. But I most enjoy pcs with deep emotional connections to other people.

[spawnloser]

There are two ways to think of self-sufficiency, and one of those ways is (imho) a bit unrealistic.  That's where the confusion comes from.  Self-sufficient means they can take care of themselves, and it does not mean they can do everything themselves.  They should be able to do all that they need to provide a means of support for themselves, but to do some of the super-cool stuff, they need friends and allies.  Some classes, if you ask me, have their skill branching tree constructed specifically to create dependencies on others.  This doesn't mean they absolutely require other people, but to do some things, they have to find someone to fulfill certain needs.

[Qeynos]

Players (of any game) will always be much less likely to do something just for the sake of doing it rather than because they need to do it. If the game makes it easier for characters to accomplish their goals without the need to interact with others, more players will refrain from interacting extensively. If it becomes harder, more will seek that interaction. At the end of the day, the more you allow players to do most things by themselves, the less characters will be available for roleplay; they'll all be out doing things by themselves, not asking for help around the bar or joining clans for strength in numbers. This is one of the things I don't like here, such as how combat training is actually done most efficiently alone in the wilds or an alley, while becoming a soldier is one of the worst ways of learning how to fight. I certainly wish there were more than two active characters in my clan.

[Qzzrbl]

This is one of the things I don't like here, such as how combat training is actually done most efficiently alone in the wilds or an alley, while becoming a soldier is one of the worst ways of learning how to fight.

As someone who's played in clans that held sparring every IG day, and who's also played solo off-peak just hunting and whatnot....

I contest this claim.

Especially considering that when certain people catch you killing in the alleys, or when a big bad beasty pops up in the wilds, you find your way to the Great Mantis Head In The Sky fairly quickly.

Is solo grinding faster? Possibly, but likely not near quickly enough to balance the risk.

[Qeynos]

Well, it obviously depends on the clan. Some of them can't hold sparring events every IG day, because there aren't anyone online half the time. Some of the major clans, too.

[valeria]

Not only do I strongly disagree that being a soldier is not one of the best ways to learn how to fight, but I think in the long run it hurts you to do it solo in terms of of the point of this thread--no character is entirely self-sufficient.  Being a soldier is a great way to make friends.  Making friends is a great way to get stuff done beyond the coded grind.

(Sidebar, the best way to get more clan interaction is to be visible and cool, and to recruit.)

[Qeynos]

How can you strongly disagree with that? It's a well-known fact that many clans go for long stretches of time with hardly anyone around. Who becomes the better fighter - the guy who's in that clan, seeing another member two or three times per 24h played, or the guy who can go out and kill stuff whenever and wherever he pleases? A select few clans have large playerbases, and I'm sure it switches up from time to time, but in general many clans are so underpopulated that sparring is ridiculously prohibitive. The capacity for soldiers to make friends doesn't even come into that discussion, although one could also pose the argument that the necessity to stay in a clan compound or training facility for a large portion of one's life can hamper one's ability to meet people, compared to someone who can do whatever they please. Whatever the case, it seems fairly clear to me that not enough players are choosing clanned life, at least outside fo a lucky few clans, and that this might be different if clan life was a greater necessity or luxury rather than, often, a restriction with few benefits. The relative ease of self-sufficiency may very well have something to do with this.

[Lizzie]

What is the point of being self-sufficient, in a multiplayer roleplaying game though?

Yes, someone who can run out any time he wants, who learns how the timers work, learns how to min-max the system, can advance his skills more efficiently than the identical twin of that character who relies on other PCs to spar with in the Byn.

So okay, now you have this really buffed guy who can kill meks. Now what? No one knows him, no one cares about him, no one wants to be his friend, no one wants to hire him because he hasn't proven himself to anyone else yet. No one even knows he's a badass, except he's wearing all this leet gear that he knows will give him the best advantage over his twin brother in killing stuff and not dying.

So what? I mean really. Think about that. So what?

On the other hand, the guy in the Byn, he has a clan, he has comrades, he has the opportunity to hang out with a crew of people who can/will watch his back -or- possibly stab him in the back if he pisses them off. He has a place that doesn't need a rental renewal, he has a sparring dummy, and raw materials to work with when he wants, if he's interested. He has the opportunity, and by now, the clout, to go out, mingle with people who have sids, and gather contracts. No, he can't kill you, because he's not as good at combat as you are. However, he's a Bynner. He isn't being paid to care whether or not HE can kill you. His crew can kill you. And if he can't get his crew together, he now has the clout to hire someone else to kill you. You got - a big sword, expensive armor, and no friends.

[Synthesis]

Solo hunting is definitely the quickest way to become a badass warrior or ranger.  It's also the most dangerous way.  Pick your poison, I say.

Also, the draw of playing a solo character isn't to "become an uber badass and pwn n00bs."  Generally, it's because you can go out and do whatever you want, whenever you want...and since it's what you want, you always have fun.  You don't have to wait for your clannies to log in in order to spar, and you don't have to wait for the goddamn sergeant to show up in order to go DO something.  You can pull your mount out, and ride off into the wild red yonder all on your own...and if you die doing it, so what?  You can roll up an infinite number of basically the exact same character until you get lucky and survive long enough to prosper.  I imagine this is quite attractive to people with low playtimes.  Besides, the most interesting time in a character's life (for me) is that first 5-10 days where every hour you play is a struggle to survive.

Sure, you won't end up in anyone's "Staff Approved Awesome Log," and you probably won't run across any sekrit plots that you can titter and giggle about to your AIM buddies and drop subtle hints about on the GDB, but you can still have a damn good time.

[valeria]

How can you strongly disagree with that?

Besides agreeing with Lizzie, I disagree because I've played in a military clan where I was one of three people in it.  I didn't get to spar all the time.  Sometimes I was even bored.  But I stuck with it, and lived long enough to get a good reputation, and got to participate in some awesome things.  My character probably wasn't the best in fighting, and I KNOW there were independents who kicked more ass than she did in a shorter period of time, but she lived longer and saw more and was overall more satisfying than any true independent I've played to date.

I don't know how her skills would compare, since this was before you could see skill levels, but even with very limited sparring she had advanced enough to single-handedly beat up any of the new characters that started coming into the clan (possibly because they saw my character around a LOT, and being visible is the best way to recruit).  I would say that she got decently well-trained at combat, even being in a fighting clan without a lot of people to spar with.  Not the MOST badass, but certainly good enough.

So that's how I strongly disagree.  As for the why, it's possible to play solo-independent characters and have a lot of fun, and it's possible to play clanned characters and have a lot of fun.  Even with the restrictions clans place on you, there's still enough reasons to join many clans that make them desirable enough for people to play in.  That's why I think there's a good balance right now in terms of self-sufficiency--you aren't necessarily forced to be social or clanned, but it's often better for you in terms of ability to get things done if you are social.  Because it's a roleplay mud, I think being social should be encouraged, but because not everyone else gets off on that like I do, I think it's great that you can also be solo-independent if you have that drive.

[jstorrie]

If there is even one other guy in your clan you can spar reliably with, and you're both combat classes, you will keep pace with the indie.

If your clan has absolutely no-one to train with, well, that sucks, but it's something you can address through IC action.

[mansa]

My last character was a go-to guy for certain people for hard-to-get items.

I also -always- bought items from other players, and always tried to offer a better price than NPC merchants.

Sure, after a while I was actually losing money buying items from the playerbase (as it is hard to then find another buyer at a higher price) but the contacts that I made being in the know of someone with "stuff" brought along other jobs that brought in the big coins.

[Riev]

Because someone's name is Qeynos and I love EQII's crafting system, I am going to mention that.

In the beginning, each crafting system forced the players to rely on other crafting guilds to assist supplying materials. Sure, a carpenter may be able to make expert nails, but only a weaponsmith/armorsmith could actually make the steel ingots he needed to make the nails. This led to a lot of interdependency in the various sub-crafting guilds. I, for one, thought it was amazing that you needed to have a good weaponsmith friend to work some of the things you needed for your own crafting, and it really led to an involved playerbase that worked together while still making profits.

Then they took it away. You no longer needed another crafting guild to supply things for your crafting, and there was absolutely no more community for crafters. Just WoW-like spams on the auction channel for something someone newly created. For me, all the luster of trading for that rare piece of palladium, spamming my ass off to make it an ingot for an armorcrafter to make a mint of off, while cutting me a good profit, was gone. I didn't really care.

Its a personal opinion, but I would say that having the 'need' for multiple classes to accomplish a goal is part of the DnD-style universe we're all playing in, and the reason for the system most MUDs are built to recreate. When you take away the 'need' for other people, you take away the 'reason' for many to interact. Why get someone else to do it, when you can do it, and do it better, and KNOW it gets done?

[Synthesis]

Another thing to consider as far as interdependency is concerned:  this is a game where the average character survives only a little over 2 weeks (according to Gimf's old data).  That doesn't really facilitate relying on other characters to get things done for you, because most characters are a) unskilled and b) less than 2 weeks away from disappearing.

[brytta.leofa]

I wonder if Gim's average was over the number of characters created over a period of time, or over the number of characters active at a given time.

[Aaron Goulet]

Another thing to consider as far as interdependency is concerned:  this is a game where the average character survives only a little over 2 weeks (according to Gimf's old data).  That doesn't really facilitate relying on other characters to get things done for you, because most characters are a) unskilled and b) less than 2 weeks away from disappearing.

I think that's because many people play combat roles.  You'd probably see more merchants around if, you know, people actually needed them.

[Is Friday]

Another thing to consider as far as interdependency is concerned:  this is a game where the average character survives only a little over 2 weeks (according to Gimf's old data).  That doesn't really facilitate relying on other characters to get things done for you, because most characters are a) unskilled and b) less than 2 weeks away from disappearing.

I think that's because many people play combat roles.  You'd probably see more merchants around if, you know, people actually needed them.

Oh... people need them. But I reckon that merchants store more than warriors do.

[Nahara]

Another thing to consider as far as interdependency is concerned:  this is a game where the average character survives only a little over 2 weeks (according to Gimf's old data).  That doesn't really facilitate relying on other characters to get things done for you, because most characters are a) unskilled and b) less than 2 weeks away from disappearing.

I think that's because many people play combat roles.  You'd probably see more merchants around if, you know, people actually needed them.

Oh... people need them. But I reckon that merchants store more than warriors do.

Yeah, I am guessing it's less likely for a merchant to be killed, and that leaves one alternative.

[Salt Merchant]

I like the ability to play independently.

No clan schedule dictating I have to be in a certain place when no one else is.
No dependence on someone else's play times.
No superior to say no to every action or goal my character develops an interest in.
No being the bitch of some character appointed to a high position rather than working up to it.
No getting upset over the laziness of other characters who are just not interested in pulling their weight.
No one chewing my character's ass if I need to go semi-afk for a while.

And so on.