Yes, it's a bit of a misleading title because plots are already part of the game in a MUSH environment, but it gets across what I'm trying to say.
The project I'm working on emulates TV urban fantasy as a genre and one of the conventions of that genre is the Scooby gang, (or the pack or family or whatever). Few protagonists truly go it alone in the TV version of UF. Which is a great thing for a MU, because group play is play that tends to heighten player engagement for several people at once and often spills out to other groups.
To encourage that kind of play while avoiding punishing those who do wish to be lone avengers of the night, we are likely going to be giving out plot tokens on a monthly basis. Accumulate enough tokens and you can turn them in to get a staff-run plot, personalized to your player or group. We are tentatively looking at one or two tokens a month per character and a base cost of ten tokens per personalized plot.
For the purposes of our game, each of these staff-run plots would be the equivalent of an episode or two of a TV show in which the season story arc is furthered, rather than just a 'monster of the week' episode with minor story elements. (Though we do have some awesome plans for monster of the week plots that won't even require staff involvement except for loading up a plot dispenser object with NPC+Location+Situation Madlibs blocks and then reviewing the logs for future plot hooks.)
Players can pool their tokens within a particular group as long as they are flagged as belonging to 'X pack' or 'Y family' or 'Z coven'. So while a hardcore solo player can reasonably expect a personalized plot every five or six months of play, a group of three to five players can expect one every month, storyteller time permitting.
My personal thought as the game Producer/HeadWiz is that we want to encourage folks to buy into the genre conventions and game events, rather than freezing out those who don't. And the plot tokens can be a useful meta-currency for rewarding behavior we want to see or for taking up roles we want to see filled.
Have any of you tried something like this before? Or played on a game that did? Did it work? Would you, as a player, appreciate such a system?
No comment on your actual question, but I will say that unless you make sure that staff do not spend more than 50% of their time on purchased plots then you will defacto be saying that you need to be in a group to get staff run plots. It won't be on purpose, just folks being busy. Just something to be aware of.
I had been hoping this was a question on what is it that players are actually trying to do, and whether its a game in any sense of the term.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
@misadventure said in Gamifying Plots:
No comment on your actual question, but I will say that unless you make sure that staff do not spend more than 50% of their time on purchased plots then you will defacto be saying that you need to be in a group to get staff run plots. It won't be on purpose, just folks being busy. Just something to be aware of.
Honestly, I'm not sure I have a problem putting solo players at the back of the queue. In terms of keeping a MU going, people who invest in the game by getting involved with others tend to bring more value to the game.
If that sounds a bit mercenary, it is. And I'm okay with that. I think it's fair and reasonable to put your resources where the game as a whole benefits most from them.
I am, of course, willing to listen to opposing viewpoints on it, but as a long-time player of MUs, I haven't noticed lone wolf types contributing much in terms of keeping others entertained and engaged.
I was thinking more the difference between people who form varied groups by need, vs an established scooby gang. How you reward things will shape what players do. At the point here you want everyone to be in a gang, just say so, and move on with the premise that they will be in a gang.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
I'm more of a fan of presenting things as an option and letting people do what they want to do, within reason. Encouraging behavior is a less intrusive tool than demanding it.
@misadventure said in Gamifying Plots:
I was thinking more the difference between people who form varied groups by need, vs an established scooby gang. How you reward things will shape what players do. At the point here you want everyone to be in a gang, just say so, and move on with the premise that they will be in a gang.
I am a person that likes to do this. I make IC connections with lots of characters and get to know their strengths and weakness and thrn when i get an ST I build my AYeam as needed per plot. I like to play the Charlie character, the solo character that tracks down the leads then goes and grabs the peeps to get a mission done once the investigation phase is over. Or even multistage. I bring Tom and Sue along for the investigation stuff but once it is time to face the big bad Tom and Sue go back to their coffee shop and I grab Synthia and Bill for the deadly risky work.
@bad-at-lurking said in Gamifying Plots:
I'm more of a fan of presenting things as an option and letting people do what they want to do, within reason. Encouraging behavior is a less intrusive tool than demanding it.
It's not always the case, but typically players will focus entirely around whatever they can gain, regardless of how rewarding it is, or in theme.
Staff plots are assumed to have better chances of relevancy to the setting, and better rewards. Players will aim for them as if little else matters.
@bad-at-lurking my problem with the inherent idea od 'put solo players at the back of the que' is that if those solo players never get their scenes they have paid for done in a timely fashion you are defacto proclaiming cliques to be the preferred type of playerbase on your game and cliques rarely create a healthy environment in a MU when encouraged.
There is a difference between 'clique' and 'group'. At least in implication.
Also, I look at it this way: I have to budget my time for running the MUSH and so do my storytellers. Right now we have a coder and a couple of us who will end up builders/storytellers/general dogsbodies.
If we start with two storytellers, with X amount of time available, we have to look at what is going to provide the most 'value' for our spent time. In this case, I'm defining 'value' as 'things that help our game grow and keep the players engaged'.
Giving a preference to spending that limited resource in the ways that return the most value is not unreasonable, it just goes against nerd sensibilities that nobody should be left out. And I sympathize with that. It does suck. But if you make the decision to be a loner on a game that emulates a genre where the dynamics are usually group based, I'm not going to incentivize that kind of play. I'm also not going to punish it, as we are planing on using a 'dispense a plot' system for semi-random 'episodes' that can be tuned for one person or a group.
We're going to take a stab at maximizing return for investment to start with and then adjust if that tactic doesn't look like it will be fruitful in a MU environment. And if/when we attract more storytellers, that preference will be less noticeable.
@bad-at-lurking The problem with this is that you are going to be excluding people who could bring more people in, or join up with other people to form their own group.
If you only appeal to an established group, then that is ALL you will have on your game. People will leave. You need to balance it out and make activity for everyone or what's the point?
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
@lithium You have a point.
I still don't think that giving preference to group activities over solos is a bad idea. But I am seeing that I need to give solos more time than I originally budgeted.
As a side note, there are people who may not be able to form groups easily due to things like timezones or shift patterns. I personally love getting a group together to tackle problems, but being in GMT, it's difficult finding a time that suits others without staying up into the early hours of the morning.
+1 for more time needed for solos, I guess is what I'm saying.
@bad-at-lurking said in Gamifying Plots:
There is a difference between 'clique' and 'group'. At least in implication.
The usual difference is this: A clique is a group you are not a member of.
@arkandel its a little more than that. Clqiues tend to be groups that alienate players that are not part of their group, have high barriers for entry, and tend to give far too many fucks about other groups or individuals to the point of bullying.
@magee101 said in Gamifying Plots:
@arkandel its a little more than that. Clqiues tend to be groups that alienate players that are not part of their group, have high barriers for entry, and tend to give far too many fucks about other groups or individuals to the point of bullying.
I may be a wild optimist at heart, but I think I'm going to wait until we get the game up and running, attract players, get groups, let those groups get comfortable with each other, start plots, establish those groups as dominant social factors and then attract yet more players to possibly be alienated, bullied or otherwise abused before I start seriously worrying about it.
Frankly, I'd be thrilled to have all that happen so I have to deal with that sort of problem.
@magee101 said in Gamifying Plots:
@arkandel its a little more than that. Clqiues tend to be groups that alienate players that are not part of their group, have high barriers for entry, and tend to give far too many fucks about other groups or individuals to the point of bullying.
Sure, of course they are, but my point is distinguishing the difference between that and a group of friends who're just playing and sticking together is a very subjective deal.
With that in mind:
@bad-at-lurking said in Gamifying Plots:
the plot tokens can be a useful meta-currency for rewarding behavior we want to see or for taking up roles we want to see filled
That's a good idea, assuming you guys have enough resources to make it work in the mid/long term. The meta-currency idea is better - I think - than the custom plots one simply because it gives players more flexibility; some will have access to pocket GMs to run things for them if need be, but they might be attracted by the currency aspect.
I advise you to think of tangible 'roles' in advance though and monitor how they can be taken, or how attractive they will be in comparison both to each other but also to 'free' ones.
@arkandel I wouldn't say its subjective. Difficult to distuniguish at times sure but definately not subjective. TBH as a new player on a game it isnt hard at all to spot the groups from the cliques, mostly it is only difficult from Staff bc they dont interact with players in the same fashion as other players do.
Maybe we play on different places, but my experience has been the opposite.
When I ST a solo event, it goes a lot faster, and the RP decision-making is substantially deeper.
I find it easier to manipulate the action to exploit a PC’s past and weaknesses one-on-one. And I would warrant the solo PC has a better experience that way.
I also question whether coming up with a model to justify the bias is a good idea.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
No argument about running something for a solo player being easier, but in general, minute for minute, there is less value to a game doing things for one person at a time as opposed to spending that time on a group.
Also there is nothing less satisfying as a player than coming into a game fresh off the street and unable to find a foot hold to get established. If I were to join a game where groups were given priority 24/7 over single players it would mean to play I would have to join a group. Now for the sake of putting this in perspective, let's pretend the only group willing to take on the new player is headed by the MuSoapBox famous VaSpider. I have to join that group or never really get into things or just not play. There is the option to bring my friends but I'm guessing my experience in not getting a foot hold would make me not want to do so.
Then when it's all over and the rest of you are ready for Dead Animal Pickup, I'm gonna go balls deep into Dahl. But only because she asked me to. Sweet-like. - Riddick (2013)
Maybe we play on different places, but my experience has been the opposite.
When I ST a solo event, it goes a lot faster, and the RP decision-making is substantially deeper.
I find it easier to manipulate the action to exploit a PC’s past and weaknesses one-on-one. And I would warrant the solo PC has a better experience that way.
I also question whether coming up with a model to justify the bias is a good idea.
