How does a Mu* become successful?

[Deviante]

In my opinion it's something like what makes a business successful; Supply and Demand. If you have a great product and have skilled people working for you in order to make sure your clients are happy, you can say you have a successful business. In the games I've played, the ones with active staff also seem to have active players. As soon as staffers became inactive, players started to drop off.

[Arkandel]

@Deviante said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

If you have a great product and have skilled people working for you in order to make sure your clients are happy, you can say you have a successful business.

You just described many (many!) businesses which, for one reason or other, went bankrupt.

It's the accomplishment of goals that makes a business successful - i.e. typically 'be profitable' . Projects like MU* are different, it's hard to draw comparisons.

[Apos]

@ThatGuyThere I don't think you're all that pessimistic so much as a realist that a lot of games have no desire at all to be larger, since doing so would compromise the ability of staff to deal with people on a one-on-one basis. There's a very concrete upper bound to how much time head staff has after all, and if they want to deal personally with each player on the game in a routine way, that makes games of thousands of players impossible. They've already decided what kind of game they wanna be, they are happy with it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It just seems to me to be a very important consideration when the topic question was about "How does a MU become successful" was taken to meaning how popular it was, when a lot of games cannot go past a certain point without losing their identity and how they work. For other games that are designed in mind with accommodating a much bigger pool of players, it's different and they can feel free to go for it.

[faraday]

@ThatGuyThere said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

I will freely admit a new influx could usher in a golden age must neither side has any sort of hard evidence to back up a positive or a negative outlook so I will stick with desiring small growth over large.

Yeah it could go either way really. I mean, nothing says that a game has to accept all 26 apps at once. And if platforms like Evennia or Ares reduced the barrier for running your own game, you'd have more of them. Granted, it doesn't help you staff said games, but one might speculate that's also a problem that would be helped by having more people in your "talent pool" as it were.

It would definitely change the hobby - of that there is no doubt.

[Arkandel]

All that is true but I think we are also shooting ourselves in the foot a fair bit when it comes to most MU*'s ability to scale for more players. What I mean by it is a lot of checks currently in CGen - in my opinion at least - serve a marginal purpose of actually improving roleplaying conditions in the game; the value of backgrounds for example is already being discussed, and many games have consciously decided against further automation for routine things such as XP spends by putting them behind hoop-jumping, requiring justifications (which need to be read after all) and so on.

For instance there's no reason CGen checks, assuming staff still wants oversight over the characters, can't take place after the PC hits the grid; that dramatically cuts down on the initial bottleneck before players get to the good parts and they can be processed when convenient.

What I'm saying here is not that staff who want to pay more personalized attention to characters are doing it wrong; there is certainly a benefit, but it doesn't match the time invested. Obviously if a game-runner wants to do it anyway they should, but if they don't then it won't be the end of the world (*), and the game could handle much greater playerbases than we're used to.

(*) There is one caveat in this assumes having reasonably seasoned players. In @ThatGuyThere's example of a thousand complete newbies busting the doors down to get into text-based roleplaying games there will need to be a lot more hand-holding than we're probably ready to provide.

[Thenomain]

@Arkandel

CG checks before role play serves a great number of purposes. System validation. Theme enforcement. Uh, other things, but that's two more reasons than you gave for dismissing pre-RP checking. They can be loosened, certainly, but to say there is no reason that it can't be dropped is one more reason I think you don't know what you're talking about.

We should be constantly looking for ways to lower the barrier to entry, but it helps to have logic behind it. Mushes have run on 400 people logged in at once; what on earth do you mean it doesn't scale? I've created a chargen that does all the system checking for you; what do mean it doesn't scale?

Bah.

[Arkandel]

@Thenomain said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

@Arkandel

CG checks before role play serves a great number of purposes. System validation. Theme enforcement. Uh, other things, but that's two more reasons than you gave for dismissing pre-RP checking. They can be loosened, certainly, but to say there is no reason that it can't be dropped is one more reason I think you don't know what you're talking about.

Just because you value things differently it doesn't mean you are right - you realize that, right?

For instance and for the most part theme enforcement rarely proves to have been critical enough that it had to be done pre-grid; while good staff will be able to provide useful, insightful input it's fairly rare that turned out to be urgent enough that it couldn't wait for later. If there are disrepancies they can be worked out after the fact instead of allowing that big bottleneck to stay in place.

Sure, occasionally you'll get a Transformer trying to apply into a Vampire MU* but that's the rare exception. BITN's background-writing for instance is optional and it didn't explode.

We should be constantly looking for ways to lower the barrier to entry, but it helps to have logic behind it. Mushes have run on 400 people logged in at once; what on earth do you mean it doesn't scale? I've created a chargen that does all the system checking for you; what do mean it doesn't scale?

I suggest reading what the thread is about instead of trying to attack... something, I don't know what, or why. @ThatGuyThere brought up a theoretical question - what if we suddenly had more than a thousand people trying to get into MU*, could we handle that load? And my answer argument was that, other than for hand-holding and personalized assistance to complete MU* newbies, we still have practices in place which defy code automations because they include mandatory human checks which, while still helpful, have a disproportionate benefit compared to the time and effort involved, and as such we could likely afford to place them at a lower priority if we did get a rush of newbies coming in all at once trying to apply for characters.

Now, I could certainly be wrong - I have been before - but sometimes you're really grouchy, man.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

For instance there's no reason CGen checks, assuming staff still wants oversight over the characters, can't take place after the PC hits the grid; that dramatically cuts down on the initial bottleneck before players get to the good parts and they can be processed when convenient.

There's plenty of reasons not to do this, actually. I can think of:

1. Blocking prohibited PC types, such as children and anthropomorphic skunks.
2. Blocking revenge PC types, created to PK specific folks.
3. Avoiding retconning scenes involving the above.

These sound like good reasons to implement a system that allows you to check over PCs before they hit the Grid.

[Thenomain]

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

Just because you value things differently it doesn't mean you are right - you realize that, right?

After two posts of you saying what's best and how things must be, it's now that you decide to realize this?

I still don't think you know what you're talking about. You sure don't express it, and as long as you post with finality and without context of your own approach then yeah, I'm going to poke holes in it. There are no universal truths, here, so yes, there are plenty of reasons to do pre-RP chargen checking.

I suggest reading

Oh snap! The cliche "if you only read" comeback. Well consider me truly schooled and humbled.

I'm not attacking, well wasn't attacking, I was calling into question your solutions as you present them, because you are dogged with them to the point of blindness. This suggestion in particular is dangerous. Sure you can give it a go, but it has a lot of problems with it.

Maybe I'd be less snippy if it wasn't presented as "just do it this way". No support. No insight. Just thought. It's a dangerous thought, and I've backed up my reasoning. My "what the fuck" is just that; what the fuck.

Because, dude, what the fuck are you smoking? You didn't seem to think it through, and you're smarter than that! Don't lead people astray without being sure, please!

Okay, done now.

(Grumpy cat coder is grumpy about code.)

---

Edit: The word that's been plaguing me this entire post I just remembered is "truism". I will pick at the heart of any truism to attempt to see if anything is useful in there, because few truisms are useful, and I don't trust people who speak in them.

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

For instance there's no reason CGen checks, assuming staff still wants oversight over the characters, can't take place after the PC hits the grid; that dramatically cuts down on the initial bottleneck before players get to the good parts and they can be processed when convenient.

There's plenty of reasons not to do this, actually. I can think of:

1. Blocking prohibited PC types, such as children and anthropomorphic skunks.
2. Blocking revenge PC types, created to PK specific folks.
3. Avoiding retconning scenes involving the above.

These sound like good reasons to implement a system that allows you to check over PCs before they hit the Grid.

Sure, those can happen, but why can't 1,2 be performed retroactively?

"Hey, this guy is playing an eleven year old".
"Hey, this guy entered the room and immediately tried to attack me".

As for 3, due to the rarity of such events, it's probably more efficient to very occasionally resort to retcons than to have universal, mandatory checks. If for every 50 more or less reasonable PCs who had to wait through CG there might be one case of an idiot doing something idiotic - catching and dealing with them will save time.

Again, BITN is doing this, are they flooded with 11 year olds and vengeful PKers?

[ThatGuyThere]

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

n a thousand people trying to get into MU*, could we handle that load?

Actually it was Apos who posited 10 percent of various other RP communities trying this one. I just pointed out how big that 10 percent was as a raw number.
And while i would be hesitant to have a thousand dumped in to the community all at once I do thing one hundred could be a workable number, since that would likely get split into different games based on taste.

[faraday]

@Ganymede said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

These sound like good reasons to implement a system that allows you to check over PCs before they hit the Grid.

Yes. While I agree with @Arkandel's general suggestion of reducing human intervention, I tried post-grid approvals on Martian Dreams and it was a mess. Never again. The hassle of dealing with retcon was far greater than the hassle of dealing with apps.

But there's a lot you can do to make apps painless. @Thenomain mentioned his chargen that does all the system checking for you. I did the same with FS3, and could turn around an app in 10 minutes most times. XP spends and plots can be done with audits rather than pre-approvals as long as you don't have a consistent problem with players doing crazy things.

When it comes to scale, I worry more about the people problem. More people = more drama = more things for staff to mediate. Plus the hand-holding that Arkandel mentioned.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

Again, BITN is doing this, are they flooded with 11 year olds and vengeful PKers?

Things may have changed, but when I applied on BITN, I had to wait for them to process my 5 XP of spends prior to hitting the Grid. It was probably child's play for them to look me over and stamp me with the sign of approval.

And you really can't use BITN as a blanket example. BITN is based in the modern day with a system that isn't terribly complex. Games like Kushiel's Debut require some knowledge of an alternate fantasy world, and games like Requiem for Kingsmouth are so different from the average WoD game that staff-checking is not a bad thing.

You wanted reasons; I gave you reasons. And if you've never tried to retcon the damage that a single PC can cause in 24-48 hours, then you probably do not know how bad things can get. When you have a political game where status, titles, and influence mean something, then you either have to heavily-restrict it or review PCs as they come through.

[surreality]

I'm with @Ganymede on this. Post-approval checking doesn't get around the fact that by approving the character, as staff, you have essentially told them: "What you have created is OK and safe to go on the grid."

Even in the most innocent of circumstances, with the best of intentions on all sides, when you tell a player something has to change after approval, you're essentially saying this: "I know we said that was OK, but it's actually not." This doesn't really engender trust in the best of circumstances, and can leave a player feeling like things can get yanked out from under their feet at any time, both of which are Not Great Things.

[faraday]

@surreality Maybe I misunderstood something, but I didn't think anyone was talking about post-approval checking. I thought it was allowing them to start RP before their app had been reviewed and approved. I.e. before anyone on staff has told them "what you have created is OK."

On MDM we made it clear that they were RPing on a provisional basis and that any RP would be subject to retcon if their character had any major issues. They showed up with a special status in +finger and +who so other players would also know they were taking a risk RPing with a provisional character.

Retcons were rare, but messy enough that it was a ginormous hassle. The bigger problem was psychological. It just made the other players uncomfortable, and they got frustrated/upset at having to deal with doofuses who never should've been allowed on grid in the first place.

[surreality]

@faraday What you're describing -- the provisional RP -- is actually fairly common lately. I know TR, Reno, and BITN have all allowed it (in temp rooms, not on the actual grid), for instance. It's permitted pre-approval often enough I'm not sure what change was being suggested to that, pretty much.

[Arkandel]

@surreality Plus that's a convenient tool to use. Not only does it reduce the annoyance of being stuck in CGen until all the i's are dotted since you can play in the mean time, albeit in a somewhat more limited capacity, but you get a better feel for the character in the mean time.

A couple of scenes can give a hell of a better understanding of a new PC than writing a background, at least for me.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

I thought it was allowing them to start RP before their app had been reviewed and approved. I.e. before anyone on staff has told them "what you have created is OK."

In my opinion, when staff lets a PC onto the Grid, they are implicitly stating that the PC is OK. Putting clear policies up regarding provisional RP is a good thing, but that provisional RP can still impact other PCs on the Grid. And, as you mention, could lead to a retcon later, which can be a hassle.

It is easier, simpler, and more sensible to require approval before hitting the Grid. As @surreality said, many games allow for "provisional RP" in OOC areas between unapproved and approved PCs. That seems like a good compromise, as it allows people to generate a PC and play immediately, while protecting approved PCs that may not want to interact with a provisional PC.

[faraday]

@Ganymede said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

It is easier, simpler, and more sensible to require approval before hitting the Grid. As @surreality said, many games allow for "provisional RP" in OOC areas...

I understand what you're saying. Personally I don't see a big difference between provisional RP in OOC areas with consenting folks, and provisional RP in IC areas with consenting folks. Either way, you're risking retcon -- not only for the parties involved, but also for ripple effects if there was anything significant done during those provisional scenes.

And yeah, you can say "don't do anything significant" but it's a slippery slope. Bob and Harry RP a scene while Harry's awaiting approval. Bob tells Suzy about it. Suzy tells Harvey about it. Then it gets retconned and you have to deal with the ripples.

It's fine if that's a risk you're willing to take in order to let Harry RP while he's awaiting approval. That's a tradeoff decision each admin must make for themselves. For myself, I'm content in assuring that apps happen as soon as humanly possible. If I'm online when you submit, chances are you'll get feedback in under half an hour. Otherwise, it'll be the first thing I look at when I do log in.

[ixokai]

@faraday said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

@Ganymede said in How does a Mu* become successful?:

It is easier, simpler, and more sensible to require approval before hitting the Grid. As @surreality said, many games allow for "provisional RP" in OOC areas...

I understand what you're saying. Personally I don't see a big difference between provisional RP in OOC areas with consenting folks, and provisional RP in IC areas with consenting folks. Either way, you're risking retcon -- not only for the parties involved, but also for ripple effects if there was anything significant done during those provisional scenes.

And yeah, you can say "don't do anything significant" but it's a slippery slope. Bob and Harry RP a scene while Harry's awaiting approval. Bob tells Suzy about it. Suzy tells Harvey about it. Then it gets retconned and you have to deal with the ripples.

And I know not everyone agrees, but to me? Retcons are the ultimate in evil necessities. They should never happen and you should do everything possible to make sure they never happen. But if you must use them you must use them.

But that's why I'm very skeevy about the idea of "provisional RP".