Making a MU* of your own
-
Back to the serious bit:
#1 Have a solid idea of what you want the game to focus on. Know why you're choosing what you're choosing in each instance.
- PvP? PvE? Blend of both?
- Consent? Non-consent? Hybrid?
- What type of roleplaying do you want going on? Social, combat, smut, adventure, exploration?
#2 Be able to answer all of this before considering theme and setting if you're going to create an original theme/setting, and especially if you're looking to use your own system. This is because the themes and setting you choose should be consistent with what you want the experience of the game to create. (Ex: If you want fluff, sunshine, and rainbows, you're not going to choose WoD. If you want grimdark danger, you aren't going to run a ponyverse game.)
#3 When working on themes and setting, think about how they encourage the kind of play you want going on.
- Consider incentives for the kind of behavior you want to encourage. This can be for anything from 'agreeing to an outcome that isn't advantageous to the character to foster further roleplay' to 'smote the most monsters this week' to 'ran a public event open to everyone on the game'; there are endless potential examples here. These incentives are usually XP, but they don't have to be, and not all games use XP anyway.
- Consider the power levels appropriate to what will create the environment you want. Is it a super-powers game? Underdogs game? Skilled normals team-up game?
#4 Explain all of this as clearly as possible. Avoid nebulous policy and unspoken rules. Explain the reasoning behind the choices made, even if it's as simple as 'because I want it this way'.
#5 Organize this information in such a way that people do not have to dig around desperately hunting for it, or are likely to miss something important.
#6 Have an actual playtesting period. While plenty of folks think things can just be done on the fly, this is not ideal, and causes needless stress on whoever has been putting the place together as they scramble through the opening flood while bug-hunting and fixing-on-the-fly at the same time as helping players through the basics.
Oh fucking well.
-
@il-volpe said in Making a MU* of your own:
@Nausicaa said in Making a MU* of your own:
You can subscribe to every 'this is how to do it best' and still fail.
You can ignore almost all of them and still do okay, too, in my experience.
Yeah, it's why I seriously question the tips, tricks, and heuristics mindset, but still use it anyway since I have no better alternative.
-
@surreality said in Making a MU* of your own:
- What type of roleplaying do you want going on?
This, condensed to this:
- What type of RP do you want
... Is the answer to every thread.
If it doesn't quite match the place you're not sure about due to (insert reason!), you may want to find another place.
If you're building a place, it better have the type of RP you want or you'll lose interest faster; such as helping code for someone else, if you don't like the RP, you'll leave. Inversely, word to the wise for those finding others to code for them, if they are not interested in that type of RP, the coder will probably not stay until the job is finished.
! - OOC drama, IC conflict, staff control, squickyness, he said/she said, crossover, make up a reaso
-
One thing I would add.
Know which parts of your vision for the game you are willing to compromise on.
No game will get started and run on the work of one person alone, you will need a team to work with.
While ideally you and your team will agree on the most important issues there will be places where opinions clash. The game you get will not be entirely your own vision and that is alright.
While there are likely aspects you do not want to compromise to keep the core of what game you want intact and don't be afraid to have line drawn where things will not go, but also be open to the input and views of those helping you as well. Discerning which parts belong on which side of that fence is an essential early step. -
You know, this just occurred to me.
All of the games I know that were more successful than their kin kind of had one thing in common:
- People were playing on them when they were being built.
Not staff, but players. Hey y'all, come on by, let's socialize and talk about the game and play a little. Sure, you build this, you build that, etc.
Many of them were migration games. "Hey people I know I'm making this game over there because I love this game but I want to do something new so come check it out." Many of them were like that, the more I think about it, but I believe all of them were never soft-opened, were never carefully constructed then opened, they were just ... open.
Something I'm going to be thinking about.
-
@Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:
You know, this just occurred to me.
All of the games I know that were more successful than their kin kind of had one thing in common:
- People were playing on them when they were being built.
Not staff, but players. Hey y'all, come on by, let's socialize and talk about the game and play a little. Sure, you build this, you build that, etc.
Many of them were migration games. "Hey people I know I'm making this game over there because I love this game but I want to do something new so come check it out." Many of them were like that, the more I think about it, but I believe all of them were never soft-opened, were never carefully constructed then opened, they were just ... open.
Something I'm going to be thinking about.
Word of mouth and sense of community are better than tossing up random ads all over the place?
Inviting people you know you trust, letting them invite their friends?
Starting when enough is working but before its all done gives live feed back during the process. Also lets players contribute to establishing the game by asking FAQ questions that lets them feel something of theirs is part of the world?
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
@Lotherio said in Making a MU* of your own:
[let] players contribute
Emphasis mine. I think this is the key of all keys. Though I was personally disappointed when Haunted Memories locked the sphere information wiki pages from editing, I also noticed that the clarity and usefulness of that information also dropped steadily, in part because the administration gave themselves much more to do, but also because the players were no longer involved in world-building.
Hey staffers, you don't have to let players do whatever, but if they can say, "This Dairy Queen was the source of Dream Nettle Twisters," then this only adds to the depth of the world. That depth makes things a whole lot harder to keep track of, but you already have players who are keeping track of it for you and all you have to do is let the players tell you when it's causing a problem before stepping in.
It's not a utopia, but dang is it compelling.
-
@Thenomain I think of this kinda like the alpha/beta thing. Or a soft open -- when the basics are in, but everything needs testing and the flavor factor still has room to grow/expand/be fleshed out and people can have a real impact on shaping it.
By basics, I mean the following has been chosen: core type (MUX/Penn/Rhost/etc.), game system, general setting (target mood/era -- location can actually be more hazy than the other two but there should be an idea of what kind of location it should be, ex: big city, region, world-wide, small town), primary intended play style (PvP focus? Consent/non? etc.).
I don't think I'd, personally, drag a bunch of people into something and do the MUX equivalent of the old movie classic of, "Hey, guys, let's put on a show!" -- because a lot of the games I've heard pitched and brainstormed up amongst a crowd that no one's ever heard of because they never got past the brainstorming/creation stage started off the same way. (I've been involved in at least a dozen or so of those over the years.) No one's ever heard of them because they never got past that stage of development and died before they were known about more broadly.
Basically, it's just as easy for things to explode/implode this way as succeed, I'd think. Which is unfortunate, but thus far the record I've seen on this is 0/? against it working out. (I've never been on one of the ones where it worked in that stage to see what, exactly, they were doing or not doing; the one I was working on that may have survived was my old mortal/+ one, but I tabled it consciously/by choice when BITN emerged.)
I think this likely worked a little better before the entitlement and paranoia booms we've seen in more recent years, which is even more sad, when you really think about it. It kinda shows how pervasive 'we have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us' can be.
As to the entitlement factor, just watching how much some folks flipped their biscuits over Echoes is telling. On the paranoia front, there are a lot of very vocal folks who instantly question 'how much was GrudgeBaitPlayer involved in the creation of this stupid policy/faction/etc.?! How do I know they didn't unfairly influence the development of this thing for their benefit?!?!?!' -- and such. It doesn't matter how irrational the complaint, or how ultimately ridiculous, because that shit breeds so much more needless paranoia and is ultimately draining as hell on the creativity and motivation in the end.Oh fucking well.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Sunny said in Making a MU* of your own:
I always, always try and build-with-a-group.
Yeah, but your anecdote is one about you. The group, because you. Letting in a trickle, because you.
I'm sorry, I'm not intending to point out anyone as an example, but what I said wasn't about feeling good about being staffers and building a game with care and deliberation. Do it that way, sure, whatever, but that's not the direction I was going in.
Masquerade, Dark Metal, Haunted Memories, The Reach, these are games that started about players. Let's open before we're done, because players. Let's cut corners, because players. Boom, kapow, splat, staff forced to build things on the fly because players, players having to take up the slack for staff because players, we're all in it together because we don't exactly know what the hell we're doing or what will happen when we're done with it. Organic. Messy.
Involving. And involving means invested.
I have some thoughts about how to do this without losing control (hint: Barf Forth Vision) but, nnrgh, Sunny, your explanation sounds so sterile. Not in a bad way, which is why I apologize for using your post as the one I grab and run with, it's just ... there.
I don't care what you believe. Just believe. (A corny line, well-delivered by Ron Glass.)
-
@Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:
Involving. And involving means invested.
I have some thoughts about how to do this without losing controlI've found one important thing to do when you start a game is to pre-establish the rules, set up guidelines, make them flexible enough to allow a small amount of wiggle room when required, but make sure that they apply to everyone, players and staff alike.
And the most important thing.
Stay consistent. No exceptions for friends, no hard-nosing for enemies, treat everyone the same based on those rules. If it means you keep someone you hate who's actually behaving, so be it. If it means you remove a friend who's being a troll, so be it. You shouldn't be a total psycho to everyone, just as you shouldn't be a total passive accepting 'turn the other cheeker' as well. Just approach it with maturity and be yourself. If you're a bit heavy handed, fine, but be that way to everyone. If you're a bit more forgiving than normal, fine, but be that way to everyone.
The moment you lose the entire point and start to play favorites, or heaven forbid, try to please everyone, that's where the big problem lies, even if that favorite is yourself or your player-alts.
I have a reputation of being a total hard-ass on mushes when I have any position of power. But one thing I strive to do is be consistent to everyone equally and as fair as possible. I don't always succeed, and likely you (the collective you) won't either. Welcome to the human condition. But when you fall short, and realize it, pony up, admit it, take responsibility, and move on. For better or worse, that's an important factor to make a game successful.
-
@Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:
@Sunny said in Making a MU* of your own:
I always, always try and build-with-a-group.
Yeah, but your anecdote is one about you. The group, because you. Letting in a trickle, because you.
I'm sorry, I'm not intending to point out anyone as an example, but what I said wasn't about feeling good about being staffers and building a game with care and deliberation. Do it that way, sure, whatever, but that's not the direction I was going in.
Masquerade, Dark Metal, Haunted Memories, The Reach, these are games that started about players. Let's open before we're done, because players. Let's cut corners, because players. Boom, kapow, splat, staff forced to build things on the fly because players, players having to take up the slack for staff because players, we're all in it together because we don't exactly know what the hell we're doing or what will happen when we're done with it. Organic. Messy.
Involving. And involving means invested.
I have some thoughts about how to do this without losing control (hint: Barf Forth Vision) but, nnrgh, Sunny, your explanation sounds so sterile. Not in a bad way, which is why I apologize for using your post as the one I grab and run with, it's just ... there.
I don't care what you believe. Just believe. (A corny line, well-delivered by Ron Glass.)
How high are you right now?
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
Allow me again to apologize. I had something to say and your post was a jumping off point. I am pretty passionate about making the game an inclusive experience. What I've seen in these increasingly long years points away from some higher levels of caution and planning.
-
@Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:
All of the games I know that were more successful than their kin kind of had one thing in common:
- People were playing on them when they were being built.
Not staff, but players. Hey y'all, come on by, let's socialize and talk about the game and play a little. Sure, you build this, you build that, etc.
The reboot of RfK did this, and it went moderately well, I suppose. But it re-opened without some key things in place, like its political economy system and its converted bloodlines.
I was working with Blackmoth on the game to convert bloodlines from 1E to 2E, as we lost a lot of information from the prior wiki (which was later regained apparently). Staff seemed to be on board with this. We cautioned that it may take time to get everything done. But, as we were working on things, staff started to approve PCs with bloodlines that Blackmoth and I expressly decided would not work on a game like RfK.
If you're going to have players help with things, that's fine, but staff have to give a little authority to those players as well. Or, more to the point, if you've delegated a project to players, don't walk in and interfere with their express, implied, or apparent authority to make decisions. It is very irritating to the people trying to help.
-
@Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:
@Lotherio said in Making a MU* of your own:
[let] players contribute
Emphasis mine. I think this is the key of all keys. Though I was personally disappointed when Haunted Memories locked the sphere information wiki pages from editing, I also noticed that the clarity and usefulness of that information also dropped steadily, in part because the administration gave themselves much more to do, but also because the players were no longer involved in world-building.
Hey staffers, you don't have to let players do whatever, but if they can say, "This Dairy Queen was the source of Dream Nettle Twisters," then this only adds to the depth of the world. That depth makes things a whole lot harder to keep track of, but you already have players who are keeping track of it for you and all you have to do is let the players tell you when it's causing a problem before stepping in.
It's not a utopia, but dang is it compelling.
Double this. Said elsewhere, Staff needs to be active, provide direction, but really the world doesn't come to life until players make their mark on it. Really, it doesn't. Otherwise its just a glorified meta story the staff have devised that players can just put in their witty repartee.
But when players help build it up, add groups, add locations, add flavor, it just helps. @Thenomain mentions the DQ there, but even more. If a certain sewer becomes a meeting spot, or it leads to some underground location? If a certain small level group exists in the city and kidnaps children for black market? If a new holiday is added where some entity collects souls? Most places put a good deal of the latter bits into staff request realm. But really, if it doesn't break world, folks should have some access.
If I can, and people need it, I like to set up templates on wiki (whatever is being used) to allow folks to add plots, events, groups, locations, etc. with ease, much like most places put up character templates. More power to the people.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
The messy situation - games grown organically and not engineered in a, to reuse Theno's word, sterile fashion - might be a necessity since it's pretty hard to predict how a MU* will be received and if players will decide to roll there let alone choose to stay past the first few days.
Games like HM or TR which gained popularity then evolved in unpredictable ways are only half the equation here; for a variety of reasons others also open under otherwise talented people, with a grid/wiki/general features perhaps as good, and they just didn't get a surge of players and Storytellers to create a critical mass of interest that'd keep the ball rolling. It can be many factors contributing to such failures-to-launch from being summertime, other MU* still being popular at the time, unpopular/too unique themes... any number of things.
In that way it arguably wouldn't have mattered how well the game was engineered but it's not that which kills them compared to an "organic" growth, it's just that the latter guarantees the MU* actually did launch relatively well and it could grow.
-
I really think this is -- and this may just be a matter of terminology -- how I see an alpha/beta stage for a game. I may not be thinking of that in the same way as others do, or I might, I really couldn't say since I haven't been around on a game in alpha/beta.
I think you need your bones first.
Major organs -- that's alpha. Invite people in to get started.
Muscle and flesh, that's beta. More people, more open call.
You still need some bones first, or you're going to have a flopsy mess.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality said in Making a MU* of your own:
I really think this is -- and this may just be a matter of terminology -- how I see an alpha/beta stage for a game. I may not be thinking of that in the same way as others do, or I might, I really couldn't say since I haven't been around on a game in alpha/beta.
This is how I see alpha/beta, too, and I've played a handful in open-beta or soft open stages. I also don't get how attempting to be prepared = sterile and wrong, but this is a knee-jerk reaction to terminology from which I will back away slowly. Save to say I...disagree with that terminology and think it worthy of having a knee-jerk reaction to.
