double post!?
The above is one reason I like the ooc-intent field of actions on arx. What the PCs might be doing may be way way way off base, but if the ooc intent is "we want to build a giant wooden badger to hide in" and the PCs are carving a wooden badger our of a big tree you can give a poke/nudge that maybe they should try to make it hollow
many WoD games took the first one.
You are a monster with powers far beyond human ken. This is like saying that because everyone plays a Jedi that who gets a purple lightsaber is important.
The sad thing is that this is seen as true. It’s a glitch in the culture of these games.
Sometimes I'm genuinely unclear ooc if something is impossible or not. I don't care so much about failing at stuff it makes sense for my character to try. That can be really interesting. But it's a waste of my time and staff's time to go down a dead end and I really and truly would be fine with an ooc clarification of 'this isn't feasible at this time and due to future plots I can't tell you exactly why.' A GM being coy with me when i think I'm asking a straightforward question makes me actively disengage. I know this isn't every player but it me.
@faraday said in Earning stuff:
Games need to set expectations better so people know whether they're getting a game where they're the heroic protagonists or they're getting a game where they're the supporting characters in a wide-reaching story.
Then games need to set policies to support the kind of game they want it to be.
I concur. BSGU made managing expectations a little easier, though, because the military backdrop meant that the missions run would be, by implication, important events that everyone could take a part in. It’s a little more difficult to do this on a WoD game.
@ganymede said in Earning stuff:
It’s a little more difficult to do this on a WoD game.
Is it really? WoD is not my thing, but I am passingly familiar with it. It seems that there are any number of 'important events' that you could build stories around if that were your aim and if you steered characters into story-appropriate roles. (Which is why BSGU forced everyone to be in the mission-oriented departments.)
There's nothing wrong with saying that's not your goal - with having more of an "open world" concept where people can make anything they want. But... as @coin said:
@coin said in Earning stuff:
Many people come to online gaming to replicate and immerse themselves in the kind of stories they see the heroes and protagonists partake in on television and the big screen, or they come trying to find a way to do what they used to do in real life in tabletop with their friends back when they had time and didn't all live further away and didn't have life-sucking jobs
If a significant part of your intended audience is looking for something that your game design just flat-out can't provide then you've got issues. It's like saying: "OK I know you want X but I'm going to give you the complete opposite of X! Enjoy!"
@faraday said in Earning stuff:
@ganymede said in Earning stuff:
It’s a little more difficult to do this on a WoD game.
Is it really? WoD is not my thing, but I am passingly familiar with it. It seems that there are any number of 'important events' that you could build stories around if that were your aim and if you steered characters into story-appropriate roles. (Which is why BSGU forced everyone to be in the mission-oriented departments.)
There's nothing wrong with saying that's not your goal - with having more of an "open world" concept where people can make anything they want. But... as @coin said:
@coin said in Earning stuff:
Many people come to online gaming to replicate and immerse themselves in the kind of stories they see the heroes and protagonists partake in on television and the big screen, or they come trying to find a way to do what they used to do in real life in tabletop with their friends back when they had time and didn't all live further away and didn't have life-sucking jobs
If a significant part of your intended audience is looking for something that your game design just flat-out can't provide then you've got issues. It's like saying: "OK I know you want X but I'm going to give you the complete opposite of X! Enjoy!"
I would say the people that have the issues are the people who come to online gaming to reproduce something that the medium can't provide, actually.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@coin said in Earning stuff:
I would say the people that have the issues are the people who come to online gaming to reproduce something that the medium can't provide, actually.
On what do you base the statement that the medium can't provide that experience? Because I've seen games where it absolutely does. It's not a limitation of the medium, it's a (potential) limitation of individual game choices.
@faraday said in Earning stuff:
@coin said in Earning stuff:
I would say the people that have the issues are the people who come to online gaming to reproduce something that the medium can't provide, actually.
On what do you base the statement that the medium can't provide that experience? Because I've seen games where it absolutely does. It's not a limitation of the medium, it's a (potential) limitation of individual game choices.
The medium as in "multiplayer online gaming" at the scope we function at.
You may have had good experiences with a BSG game, but as a whole, I just don't see that, haven't seen it, and especially haven't seen it last.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@coin said in Earning stuff:
You may have had good experiences with a BSG game, but as a whole, I just don't see that, haven't seen it, and especially haven't seen it last.
It's not just one BSG game. I can name a number of games that have functioned this way, with characters operating at a more epic scale of heroic adventure. I'm not saying every game does, can or should work this way. But to claim it's impossible is inaccurate, and to claim that the people wanting it have issues is slightly demeaning.
@faraday said in Earning stuff:
@coin said in Earning stuff:
You may have had good experiences with a BSG game, but as a whole, I just don't see that, haven't seen it, and especially haven't seen it last.
It's not just one BSG game. I can name a number of games that have functioned this way, with characters operating at a more epic scale of heroic adventure. I'm not saying every game does, can or should work this way. But to claim it's impossible is inaccurate, and to claim that the people wanting it have issues is slightly demeaning.
Hey, you used "issues" first; that was demeaning, too, especially since the type of game you're describing isn't the only type of game. I am perfectly fine accepting some games may work differently, but many don't. I am also referencing games that are probably much larger in the terms of player bases, where not everyone can be part of the big plot in a way they find meaningful. Or maybe the games I'm referencing just tend to attract the kind of people who want individual glory instead of group victory, I don't know, nor do I care. If the patterns I posited repeat themselves, it's for a reason. Happy for you that you found a way to create a niche where they don't, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@coin said in Earning stuff:
I am also referencing games that are probably much larger in the terms of player bases, where not everyone can be part of the big plot in a way they find meaningful.
My intention was not to be demeaning, so I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm just pointing out what I believe to be a fact that you yourself alluded to first - if the players are coming to a game with an expectation that the game can't fulfill, then there are going to be issues. That doesn't mean the players "have issues" or that the game sucks - it just means that there's a mismatch of expectations that's going to cause strife. Setting clear expectations can help.
Personally I see that a larger percentage of players want the "heroic style" versus the "everybody's a supporting member in the overall game story style", so I think games would save themselves a lot of headaches by catering more towards that mindset. But that's in no way implying that folks who cater to the other mindset are doing something wrong.
@faraday said in Earning stuff:
@coin said in Earning stuff:
I am also referencing games that are probably much larger in the terms of player bases, where not everyone can be part of the big plot in a way they find meaningful.
My intention was not to be demeaning, so I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm just pointing out what I believe to be a fact that you yourself alluded to first - if the players are coming to a game with an expectation that the game can't fulfill, then there are going to be issues. That doesn't mean the players "have issues" or that the game sucks - it just means that there's a mismatch of expectations that's going to cause strife. Setting clear expectations can help.
Personally I see that a larger percentage of players want the "heroic style" versus the "everybody's a supporting member in the overall game story style", so I think games would save themselves a lot of headaches by catering more towards that mindset. But that's in no way implying that folks who cater to the other mindset are doing something wrong.
The problem is that not everyone understands "heroic style" as "everyone is heroes," which is my point. A lot of people are coming from experiences and searching for something that means they can be special within the world they are immersing themselves in--if everyone is special, then no one is, and that doesn't fulfill their expectations.
Also, and I guess this wasn't clear in my initial post, these aren't things I believe are conscious; they're unconscious expectations, and when they aren't fulfilled, the frustrations manifest and the causes are misattributed.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@three-eyed-crow said in Earning stuff:
Sometimes I'm genuinely unclear ooc if something is impossible or not. I don't care so much about failing at stuff it makes sense for my character to try. That can be really interesting. But it's a waste of my time and staff's time to go down a dead end and I really and truly would be fine with an ooc clarification of 'this isn't feasible at this time and due to future plots I can't tell you exactly why.' A GM being coy with me when i think I'm asking a straightforward question makes me actively disengage. I know this isn't every player but it me.
this is how I am as well. IN a table top if I come up with an idea that won't work the GM usually says sorry it won't work and everyone moves on. Given that everything on a mush generally takes longer to resolve I definitely want that on line as well, after all the table top process is mentioning it and rolling some dice so only five minutes would we wasted at most. Online, it is open a job waits days to get a reply, reply back with a +roll unless further clarifications are needed, wait more days for the results of the roll, then try to schedule a scene to put idea/thing made/whatever into action. I have no issues with trying and failing but if it is something guaranteed not to work from the beginning I would rather be told that right away rather than wasting a week or more getting being told that.
@three-eyed-crow said in Earning stuff:
Sometimes I'm genuinely unclear ooc if something is impossible or not. I don't care so much about failing at stuff it makes sense for my character to try. That can be really interesting. But it's a waste of my time and staff's time to go down a dead end and I really and truly would be fine with an ooc clarification of 'this isn't feasible at this time and due to future plots I can't tell you exactly why.'
I am absolutely this player, too. It's awful from the staff end, too.
When I was kicking stuff around, I worked up a history with a 'this is how the world came to be, and this is how things work in it. Your characters don't know this, and none of the NPCs you'll ever come into contact with know it, either, and in fact, no one in the world knows the whole thing and how everything works together at all for anyone to actually find out in the course of the game, deal with it' set of rough notes to eventually flesh out properly. This was an OT game, so 'as players, you need to know how reality actually works here, even if your characters don't and never will' is a little more necessary than it might be otherwise.
I think of this as 'the oWoD problem', aka 'here are a whole bunch of totally incompatible creation myths that are all totally true!' and then 'pick whichever you want for your table and you know we really didn't plan for games to cross over much so you really only need one, right?' Games have not been great on the 'pick one', historically speaking. 
I've seen, 'what's in the books is what your characters think, only staff knows the truth!' but, wow, does that ever clash and crash around a lot in ways that are not always easy to untangle.
So, it's 'This is how reality actually works. Your character doesn't know this and never will. As a player, make a character that fits within this paradigm, and don't break reality.'
As for specifics, like those in @Apos' example, other than the outline of existing plots, I planned to have all the world lore available to players, with spoiler tags in places where it would be tucked into other things, so that folks who didn't want to know didn't get an unwanted info dump. It's up to them if they want to read it, since -- with few exceptions -- they'd be able to incorporate these things in plots they run themselves. If they're willing to do that and provide fun for others that way, I'm of a mind to give them all the tools available to do it.
Plenty of folks run campaigns in tabletop off of pre-written modules. Plenty of players have played them before, or read that book, before or while playing. It doesn't stop them from having fun, and plenty of people 'play fair' by not automagically knowing all the answers. (WoD proves this. People have access to the books to know OOC how everyone's powers work, and characters are baffled by what's going on all the time while the players know precisely what mechanics to apply, etc.) Some people will be jerks about this, but people can find ways to be jerks about any option chosen, so I lean toward the one I like and think would be most helpful for people who want to make up new stuff or run plots to be able to do that on the OOC level with as little stress and mystery as possible. Mystery is for the characters, to me, not the people trying to add something to the game world in some way that is intended for the enjoyment of others.
@coin said in Earning stuff:
Also, and I guess this wasn't clear in my initial post, these aren't things I believe are conscious; they're unconscious expectations, and when they aren't fulfilled, the frustrations manifest and the causes are misattributed.
They are also not necessarily unfair expectations. It's how we are brought up - there are simply very few paradigms outside of MUSHing in our pop or gaming culture that prepare a player for not being one of the main protagonists of their own setting. Books, most movies and TV shows, video games, fairy tales, short stories... there's a plot and it revolves around a relatively small cast.
Most non-RPG board games? Same thing - you play to win, and very little separation between you-the-player's success and your in-game one.
Hell, the very table-top games most MU* are based on are teaching the same lessons. The coterie or pack are the true movers and shakers of the world, and they're fundamentally involved in every major plot around them by definition - those arcs are major because they involve that plot. So when I decide to take Bloodsucker Jack from my table-top campaign and put him on your game as a complete newbie, how would I know I'm actually not supposed to act the same way and expect the same involvement as before?
From a certain point of view our expectations are unreasonable. It's not natural for players to change the way they think literally everywhere else other than in MU*.
@arkandel said in Earning stuff:
It's how we are brought up - there are simply very few paradigms outside of MUSHing in our pop or gaming culture that prepare a player for not being one of the main protagonists of their own setting.
Those expectations can even be found in multi-player video games. In MMOs the quests (once you get past the "slaughter 20 bunnies and bring me their hides" stage) are designed with your character as the protagonist, even when there are umpteen million other characters on the server.
@arkandel said in Earning stuff:
From a certain point of view our expectations are unreasonable. It's not natural for players to change the way they think literally everywhere else other than in MU*.
There are, of course, teamwork-based games (e.g. Pandemic) and teamwork-based situations in games (e.g. a 20-man raid in a MMO) where it's not about stealing the spotlight. But those require the team coming into it with a set of shared expectations, and more of a community mentality. We just don't have that in MUSHland.
@faraday said in Earning stuff:
@arkandel said in Earning stuff:
It's how we are brought up - there are simply very few paradigms outside of MUSHing in our pop or gaming culture that prepare a player for not being one of the main protagonists of their own setting.
Those expectations can even be found in multi-player video games. In MMOs the quests (once you get past the "slaughter 20 bunnies and bring me their hides" stage) are designed with your character as the protagonist, even when there are umpteen million other characters on the server.
@arkandel said in Earning stuff:
From a certain point of view our expectations are unreasonable. It's not natural for players to change the way they think literally everywhere else other than in MU*.
There are, of course, teamwork-based games (e.g. Pandemic) and teamwork-based situations in games (e.g. a 20-man raid in a MMO) where it's not about stealing the spotlight. But those require the team coming into it with a set of shared expectations, and more of a community mentality. We just don't have that in MUSHland.
True, but in MMOs they've also completely gotten rid of the "special factor". Your level 60 Archmage with the Wand of Watoomb's Mom isn't the only level 60 Archmage with the Wand of Watoomb's Mom, to the point where you start to wonder how many wands Watoomb's Mom had, or at least how many moms Watoomb had.
It doesn't matter, in am MMO, if you fought the aliens off--because someone else fought them off, in fact, fifty thousand other people fought them off. It's a complete abstraction of story.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@coin said in Earning stuff:
True, but in MMOs they've also completely gotten rid of the "special factor". Your level 60 Archmage with the Wand of Watoomb's Mom isn't the only level 60 Archmage with the Wand of Watoomb's Mom, to the point where you start to wonder how many wands Watoomb's Mom had, or at least how many moms Watoomb had.
I don't disagree, but I think it's not a black-and-white question of "everybody's special" or "nobody's special". You can have a mix, where it's like you're special in the quests "Yay you saved the world from the Big Bad" and special in rewards "Woohoo you got the Wand of Watoomb's Mom" and still inherently not be special because the guy across the bar just did the exact same thing. Maybe it's more of an illusion of special? I dunno.
re: Special: most tv, book, and tabletop games do focus on a smaller circle, so that smaller circle gets to do all the things.
The things need to be spread out more with a larger player base, even if it's a case of 'we all took down the satellites!' but group 1 took down satellite 1 with their group of 5 players in their way, group 2 took down satellite 2 with another five in their way, etc. Or maybe there's 'hacking team' blocking the satellites from seeing the ships coming in to blow them up, 'flying team' is dodging baddies and getting the demolitions crew to the satellites, and 'blowing shit up team' rigs the things to blow once they arrive.
The problem happens when someone has to be doing ALL THE THINGS, and cannot and will not be happy unless they're hacking and flying and blowing up at the same time in the latter example, or are in groups 1-5 of 5 in the former. (This is one of the reasons a lot of people can't stand Mage in WoD -- this type of player is drawn so often to Mage in ways that are desperately tedious.)
I mean I'm personally of the opinion that 'Other players being special detracts from me' is one of the most toxic impulses in this hobby but that's maybe another conversation.
