Managing Player Expectations

[Tehom]

So in the 'Earning Stuff' thread, there was a digression about the difficulties that can be created when player expectations and the reality of managing a game don't properly align. Players tend to want agency and for their actions to matter, but can have wildly different expectations for scope - on the most toxic end, you have players who are incredibly unhappy when any other player gets some recognition or anything that makes them special in some way, whereas probably the most benign examples would be players who want their efforts to help support the stories of other players to be registered at all.

What I'm curious about is the approaches that people might take to try to address the problem, if they think it's one that can have a solution at all. Should it be done culturally, with help files, onboarding of new players or the first time they participate in some staff-run plot, or something else that informs them to manage their expectations? Should it be something coded, where the scope of impact they could hope to achieve from some given action would be clearly delineated? Should it only be addressed on a behavioral level by talking to players who are clearly outliers? Or something else entirely?

[Seraphim73]

I think that the answer to this is (of course) multi-part.

First, I think Staff needs to lay out their own expectations for the game clearly and concisely. I don't remember who suggested it, but I love the idea of a game mission statement: This is the game we want to run, and here's why. One to five sentences, two very short paragraphs tops.

Here was the mission statement from T8S:

The Eighth Sea is a game of piracy and the supernatural, of wooden ships, iron men, and the dark myths that slipped through the cracks of civilization. It will explore the edges of reason and the tensions between civilization, outlaws, and the unknown.
While there will be no prohibition on individual CvC conflict (piracy and the supernatural are dangerous), the focus will be on collaborative CvE, on determining the cause of The Storm and on working together to return to the world of the real. We are playing a Hollywood version of history, with similarly Hollywood interpretations of real-world religions and myths. There will be darkness, but there will also be swashbuckling and derring-do.

Second, I think Staff need to walk the walk. This is where we screwed up. We didn't have enough piracy in our pirate game. Too much supernatural, not enough piracy. But whatever vision Staff articulates, they need to follow through on it in every single encounter with players.

This is because Staff (and the behavior they allow/encourage) sets the culture of the game. So if you want your game to encourage group play, you need to celebrate those people who share the spotlight well. If you want to discourage spotlight hogs, you need to close off avenues of solo progression and direct them to ways in which to work with other PCs instead. And then those ways have to work if they actually follow them.

The more that player actions (and by this I don't mean just that they solved the plot, but how they did it) are shown to clearly impact the state of the game (not just showing up on a bbpost, but actually changing how things happen going forward), the more I think that players will be inspired to actually take action.

Thirdly, yes, I think that those players who try to spotlight hog need to be talked to, quietly and individually. On the flip side, I think that those players who are great in scenes, but don't really engage in the story need to be talked to also, to find out what's missing for them, and to encourage them to get involved (of course, going back to point two, once you find out what's missing for them, I think you either need to change it or let them know why you aren't changing it).

I don't think that this is a code issue in most cases (although maybe Teamwork Rolls could be emphasized in the difficulty of actions, to discourage lone-wolfing even in requests?). I think it's a cultural issue, not a code one.

[Arkandel]

@tehom said in Managing Player Expectations:

What I'm curious about is the approaches that people might take to try to address the problem, if they think it's one that can have a solution at all. Should it be done culturally, with help files, onboarding of new players or the first time they participate in some staff-run plot, or something else that informs them to manage their expectations? Should it be something coded, where the scope of impact they could hope to achieve from some given action would be clearly delineated? Should it only be addressed on a behavioral level by talking to players who are clearly outliers? Or something else entirely?

In my opinion these are some important steps to take - from a staff's point of view in order to address this issue.

• Be honest with yourself upfront; how much time and effort are you prepared to put in it? You can't manage other people's expectations unless you're aware what they can expect from you.

• Know what your game is about. Is PvP a major element in it or are the sword skills for fights with NPCs? Is it a political game and are upper IC positions up for grabs by players? Even whether you are trying to make a large, popular MUSH or a smaller niche one matters.

• Be clear. There's no such thing as fair but you should be very upfront about the way things (ranks, titles, XPs, rewards, etc) are going to be distributed. Even if you say "I will give stuff as I damn well see fit" at least being honest about it mitigates latter complaints and lets people decide if your game is what they want.

• As long as you're spoiling things for your players, stomp on false expectations. If some things definitely won't happen in the scope of your game inform players early OOC. "No, you guys won't find a cure for the zombies and restore the world to a pre-apocalyptic state" is a fair thing to say, then they can then still work on that IC, but you did your part. "You won't discover gunpowder and invent muskets in my fantasy game". Done.

• Write and be consistent with your policies about both staff- and player-ran plots. What's the scope? Is there a risk/rewards ratio or are you rewarding participation and running the same across the board?

• If you reward plots - that's what carrots are for - but break down the numbers - this is important. Assume some edge cases; say a dedicated ST will run 2-3 PrPs a week, does that break your game's balance for their group? Are you okay with that given the activity it generates? Don't be surprised by the effects of your own policies.

• Groom your STs. Along with coders they are rare and very important, so keep communication lines open; if they facing any challenges you can help (say, they're not very good with the mechanics, or they can't handle large groups of participants, or they're getting harassed by certain players, etc) take care of them to the extent of your own abilities.

Just a few simple things, but they can make a difference.

[Lotherio]

@seraphim73 said in Managing Player Expectations:

On the flip side, I think that those players who are great in scenes, but don't really engage in the story need to be talked to also, to find out what's missing for them, and to encourage them to get involved (of course, going back to point two, once you find out what's missing for them, I think you either need to change it or let them know why you aren't changing it).

I'm on the fence about this one, thankfully its only a wooden fence about 2 meters high cause at my age a chain link fence would be difficult.

This more relates to the type of Mu* the staff are running. If there is one involved staff metaplot that everything transcends from I can see this. But inversely for me, if there is a player who is great in scenes but not engaged with the meta, I say find ways to encourage them to go in their own direction within theme. See what they need to keep going and doing what they're doing.

I say this because as a daytime player, most Mu*s aside from the ones I attempt to run are US evening centric. Literally. I can't express it enough. As a daytime player, if I'm not having my own great fun during the day, there is little to no easy way to be involved in metaplot usually. If I'm having super fun scenes with other daytime people and staff tries to corral me into their metaplot, I usually end up looking for another place to play. As staff if I see players being great in scenes I may ask if they need anything to help.

[surreality]

I'm kinda with Lotherio on this one. It depends on whether they want to be involved with the metaplot or not, pretty much. They may just want to chill out and play the bartender who hears all the crazy stories that come in from chaos in the metaplot, or be a team medic who is just struggling with patching up the people who keep coming in bruised and bashed around. There are usually roles like this in fiction that aren't core to the plot but still add a lot to the story and the enjoyment of watching it, so I'm pretty low key on this one. They may be a great information vector (bartender), or provide an essential service (medic). Even something like someone who knows how to farm and is interested in creating a crop in a setting like The Walking Dead may mostly be picking beans, but they may be giving people a reason to go out and quest through the dangerous wilds to get seeds or stock they know they can grow effectively in the space they have, and so on. If they expect to be the star while doing this, that's clearly an issue, but there are enough examples of this in fiction and media that are useful and engaging for someone who is a casual player and wants to stick to something simple with minimal time available for the game.

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

• As long as you're spoiling things for your players, stomp on false expectations. If some things definitely won't happen in the scope of your game inform players early OOC. "No, you guys won't find a cure for the zombies and restore the world to a pre-apocalyptic state" is a fair thing to say, then they can then still work on that IC, but you did your part. "You won't discover gunpowder and invent muskets in my fantasy game". Done.

1000x this. "That's not something we want in the game."

[Arkandel]

@surreality said in Managing Player Expectations:

I'm kinda with Lotherio on this one. It depends on whether they want to be involved with the metaplot or not, pretty much. They may just want to chill out and play the bartender who hears all the crazy stories that come in from chaos in the metaplot, or be a team medic who is just struggling with patching up the people who keep coming in bruised and bashed around.

I think there are two ways people view people not participating in the metatheme at large:

• People who're just off doing their own things completely. Maybe they're running PrPs for each other, idlying in a room to harvest automatic XPs, or they're just TSing. Whatever it is, this is usually viewed in a negative way.

• Players who simply don't draw from the metaplot. They could be playing against type (the cowardly squire in a game of brave knights), the lone wolf who refuses to join the war effort, the pretty wallflower who wants to host parties in the gritty post-apocalyptic hellscape, or the bartender you mentioned who fills a different kind of niche. Reactions to these are usually flowed, and it depends on their RP's quality on how they're received.

What I'd be curious to know though is what some of such players' expectations are to begin with. I can guess it for some but not for all; the player who joins a Vampire game but hates and avoids vampires, or the group who purposefully insulate themselves from the game and runs plots for each other, or the guy who comes seeking exclusively sexual content on non-sex MU*... why?

Until we have a convincing answer as to why these approaches exist it's tricky to manage the expectations that come with them.

[Lotherio]

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

@surreality said in Managing Player Expectations:

I'm kinda with Lotherio on this one. It depends on whether they want to be involved with the metaplot or not, pretty much. They may just want to chill out and play the bartender who hears all the crazy stories that come in from chaos in the metaplot, or be a team medic who is just struggling with patching up the people who keep coming in bruised and bashed around.

I think there are two ways people view people not participating in the metatheme at large:

• ... Maybe they're running PrPs for each other .. this is usually viewed in a negative way.

What I'd be curious to know though is what some of such players' expectations are to begin with. ... the group who purposefully insulate themselves from the game and runs plots for each other ... why?

Until we have a convincing answer as to why these approaches exist it's tricky to manage the expectations that come with them.

Allow me to elucidate. I think it really depends on the level of insulation. Is this group doing private scenes for each other, or are these PrPs inclusive of any player that wants to join. Again, for me and my connect time, its because aside from my, no one is staffing and running events during my time online. I join other games because they have people to tell stories with. I can accept whatever meta unfolds that affects my PrPs and my PrPs are done within allowable guidelines on a given Mu* - they don't affect global/local scale. In @Surreality's example, I do enjoy playing that lone bartender not in the meta. Maybe there are alien invaders or some other vampire group is trying to take over the city, my limited PrP stuff might involve something low-key-scale; drug runners ruining the atmosphere of the bar, some new NPC vamp having a feeding problem, appeasing some new wraith, someone kidnapped, some locals with drug problems or a hundred other different things that have zero affect on the meta and zero affect on the game/grid/theme.

I don't see players running PrPs as necessarily a negative, and this is from years, nearly 30 now, of being a daytime player. I see more staff lingering during the day to answer questions, but really, I've yet to see one major arc/metaplot/story run by staff happen during the day. Heck even on my games I'm leery of this now, I was kicked in the teeth for doing it and not having enough stuff for evening folks (and really, what the hell, why can't I run a day-centric game, every other game is evening-centric).

[surreality]

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

• People who're just off doing their own things completely. Maybe they're running PrPs for each other, idlying in a room to harvest automatic XPs, or they're just TSing. Whatever it is, this is usually viewed in a negative way.

So far as I'm concerned, if they are not breaking theme and not negatively impacting others (which, if they never leave their room, they are unlikely to do), I don't care.

And really, my take on this from staffer brain is the same: if they're not breaking theme and not negatively impacting others, it's not anyone else's business to care or kick up a fuss about, either. Their fun is stepping on no one's face, and they should be left in peace to have their fun just like the person inclined to whine about it should be left in peace to have their different kind of fun, provided it fits the same 'doesn't break theme' and 'doesn't negatively impact others in an unreasonable way' criteria. (The 'in an unreasonable way' part is necessary here since they would be interacting with others broadly, and that may negatively impact others in ways that are totally appropriate, in theme, etc. for that game, whatever it is.)

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

What I'd be curious to know though is what some of such players' expectations are to begin with.

@lotherio said in Managing Player Expectations:

I was kicked in the teeth for doing it and not having enough stuff for evening folks (and really, what the hell, why can't I run a day-centric game, every other game is evening-centric).

Replying to both of these together just to point out that I think, on the whole, players don't take enough responsibility for managing their own expectations.

Like, say you're an evening EST player and you're bummed that @lotherio is running mostly daytime plots. Or you're playing on a zombie game and are disappointed that staff doesn't want you to save the world by designing a zombie cure. Or you're on BSGU and are disappointed that your unit is focused on killing Cylons instead of researching how to hack them.

Players need to be more willing to realize that a game just isn't for them. All too often, they'll instead choose to stick around and whine endlessly about how the game isn't meeting their needs. That sort of attitude is toxic and discouraging. We need to get away from this idea that all games need to be everything for everyone. First off, it's impossible, but secondly, when it inevitably fails, all it does is discourage new game development.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in Managing Player Expectations:

Players need to be more willing to realize that a game just isn't for them. All too often, they'll instead choose to stick around and whine endlessly about how the game isn't meeting their needs. That sort of attitude is toxic and discouraging. We need to get away from this idea that all games need to be everything for everyone. First off, it's impossible, but secondly, when it inevitably fails, all it does is discourage new game development.

The flip side to this is that it's possible to get around this.

For example, when Lotherio was running Fifth Kingdom, there were people that would run the occasional scenes during the evening. That kept activity going there. I can attest to efforts on that end, mostly pushed by players and approved by staff. I never had a problem finding things to do on that game in the evening, despite the fact that Lotherio was mostly active during the daytime.

And the active daytime crowd liked it. GMTers especially.

As another example, on BSG:U, we had player-run plots that occurred during daytime hours, even when you were mostly running things in the evening.

While I concur that it's not possible for a game to meet everyone's needs, I would posit that, with the right set-up and players, you can fill in some of those gaps. It's not going to happen all the time, but it can be done.

[faraday]

@ganymede said in Managing Player Expectations:

While I concur that it's not possible for a game to meet everyone's needs, I would posit that, with the right set-up and players, you can fill in some of those gaps. It's not going to happen all the time, but it can be done.

It's possible to get around the scheduling issue IF you have player STs willing to step up, but there's no guarantee of that. And the other issues I mentioned were more fundamental.

At the end of the day, I think players need to be responsible to either do something about it (e.g. get together to run plots themselves) or recognize that the game isn't a good fit for them. This idea that "I want to play Battlestar, so it's your duty to entertain me in the way I wish to be entertained and I'll rake you over the coals if you don't" is just entitled and unreasonable.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in Managing Player Expectations:

This idea that "I want to play Battlestar, so it's your duty to entertain me in the way I wish to be entertained and I'll rake you over the coals if you don't" is just entitled and unreasonable.

Agreed.

[Seraphim73]

@lotherio and @surreality Oh yeah. I didn't mean to try to force good-in-random-scenes-but-not-into-metaplot players into metaplot, I more just meant to check in with them and see if there's anything you can/should change to make things better for them (or if they're perfectly happy doing what they're doing).

Definitely agree with @Arkandel about telling people that their idea isn't something you're interested in on your game up-front and early. Don't string them along, don't tease them, just let them know that it's not a story you're interested in telling.

On the flip side, as @faraday mentioned, I think that players need to recognize when their view of the setting doesn't mesh well with Staff's, and either adjust their view or leave the game. I don't have a problem with a player pitching something (a storyline, a PrP, whatever) that changes the game slightly, but if Staff tells them that they're not interested, it's time for them to either shift their expectations, or find somewhere else to go.

@Lotherio Just as a note, I see players running PrPs as a massively, immensely positive thing. If players are engaged in the setting and interested in telling stories in it? Great. The only possible downsides of players running PrPs in my mind are if they break theme or they're exclusive. That's it. In theme, allow anyone who fits the PrP into it? Great. Do it. I would even be totally cool giving a metaplot thread to a player who had proven they could handle it to run at a time that Staff couldn't.

[Arkandel]

I've had talks in the past trying to guess what possesses people to go to a certain kind of game looking for content that doesn't quite match what its theme is about.

The obvious case (which I don't want the thread to be consumed by) is sex. Some players don't go to Shang but instead to newVampireMUSH, and I'm not talking about stalkers or jerks here but just regular players who want a very large portion of their RP to be about TS, yet they don't choose to play on TS-based MU*.

Or... people who claim they despise certain genres or types of games yet they play them anyway. That doesn't make any sense! If you hate L&L why play on Arx? And if you do what's the point of trying to invent a steam engine or gunpowder or whatever otherwise proclaim the game to be a railroading failure because it doesn't match that very one-sided vision?

The only expectations players should have is for things to be fairly documented and implemented - in other words that procedures are written down ahead of time and staff not screwing them over. Now granted, this has been... known to not be the case.

Otherwise though in many cases expectations weren't fair to begin with. Even when I was participate in a PrP I didn't enjoy too much - perhaps I wasn't given agency, maybe it's too slow, could be that it's too combat based with little story to sink my teeth into, whatever - it's always up to me to leave. I didn't get promised anything, the ST (be it staff or player) doesn't owe me anything.

I feel sometimes we take things for granted in our community, including the time and energy put forth by others for our entertainment. The world outside of MUSHdom isn't our oyster to harvest for our fun as we see fit, so why should a MU* be?

[Lotherio]

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

I've had talks in the past trying to guess what possesses people to go to a certain kind of game looking for content that doesn't quite match what its theme is about.

I think what it comes down to is: its not the content (or genre) but the audience. They're looking for other players.

And player expectations vary between players; such as the noted random social scene versus some pretext prepared before entering social scenes. We've seen where this can go by some of the discussion on using RP chan and/or asking for RP; some folks want to ask for RP and then figure out where it goes organically, some folks will not engage with an RP request unless the requester has some detailed pretext for a scene already lined up.

I think of late what it feels like most of all is the amount of investment and much as in life, whether we admit it or not, a lot of players look for minimal investment with greater odds on return of the investment. Just I think MU-wise, return doesn't quite work that way for RP; perhaps coded return sure, there are games with measurable returns to investment with code but that's not quite the same as RP I think?

[Arkandel]

@lotherio said in Managing Player Expectations:

I think what it comes down to is: its not the content (or genre) but the audience. They're looking for other players.

Oh, I agree. It was clear when people flocked to TR (as I imagine they are going to Arx now, as they will go to whatever is the Next Big Thing) because it's where other players are whether they like what it's about or not. But while fully assimilating yourself into a culture shouldn't be obligatory, not being disruptive should be.

If I come to your table and you're running a light-hearted silly high fantasy D&D campaign I don't get to insist on eviscerating my enemies before I bathe in their entrails and eat them, and if I do my excuse can't possibly be that hey, yours is the only game in town. Not while I'm eating your pizza. That just makes me a douche.

I think of late what it feels like most of all is the amount of investment and much as in life, whether we admit it or not, a lot of players look for minimal investment with greater odds on return of the investment. Just I think MU-wise, return doesn't quite work that way for RP; perhaps coded return sure, there are games with measurable returns to investment with code but that's not quite the same as RP I think?

The curious part in this though is that while the primary motivation for these types is socialization they are acting in a decisively antisocial manner. They are, at the same time, going to games specifically seeking the company of other players but also engage them in a way that breaks that game's norms which distances them from what those players are doing.

It's an exercise in frustration for all involved parties; themselves, staff, and other people.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

The curious part in this though is that while the primary motivation for these types is socialization they are acting in a decisively antisocial manner.

I don't think the primary motivation is socialization for all MUSHers. At least not on a general level. Many people play solely to play with their friends. Others are on the extreme anti-social side and view other players as nothing but props to enable or witness their rise to greatness. Cliques, creepers, glory-hogs, theme-breakers, and just plain-old rudeness... when you think about it, there's a crap-ton of anti-social behavior rampant in MUSHing. (And on the internet in general, though that's a separate-but-related issue.)

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

I feel sometimes we take things for granted in our community, including the time and energy put forth by others for our entertainment. The world outside of MUSHdom isn't our oyster to harvest for our fun as we see fit, so why should a MU* be?

I agree with this 100% but I will point out that a lot of people take that same attitude even outside of MUSHing. I mean we've all seen people rip creators to shreds because a video game, TV show or movie wasn't to their liking. Not even because it was objectively bad, but because it wasn't what they thought it "should" have been.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in Managing Player Expectations:

I agree with this 100% but I will point out that a lot of people take that same attitude even outside of MUSHing. I mean we've all seen people rip creators to shreds because a video game, TV show or movie wasn't to their liking. Not even because it was objectively bad, but because it wasn't what they thought it "should" have been.

There's a very big difference between the two however which we need to keep in mind.

When people bitch at a TV show or video game which otherwise has good ratings, the writers, cast or developers might be perturbed (everyone enjoys some appreciation, after all) but they are otherwise compensated for their labors. There is some real incentive for them, and future others, to go into the genre and work even if they need to turn social networks off since it pays the bills.

On the other hand there's a lot of work involved in setting up a MU* (which I'm sure is all news to you ). But appreciation and the satisfaction of work done well is the compensation those involved get - that's it, there's no cheque in the mail. In fact you have to pay to keep the lights on in the first place. To spend all those hours doing thankless things with your free time, or worse to be complained at, is a grind of its own.

So when we discuss expectations, those of administrators shouldn't be discounted. They are people, too!

[ThatGuyThere]

@arkandel said in Managing Player Expectations:

The obvious case (which I don't want the thread to be consumed by) is sex. Some players don't go to Shang but instead to newVampireMUSH, and I'm not talking about stalkers or jerks here but just regular players who want a very large portion of their RP to be about TS, yet they don't choose to play on TS-based MU*.

I can see this one for a couple of reasons, one Shang to me (never player there) seems very disjointed on a character level not a lot of continuity between scenes, not this could be totally wrong but it is the impression i have gotten over the years especially things like that ice cream character. for me it seems like the difference between porn with a plot and the tapes that are just sex scene comps.
The second obvious reason would be if vamps are their thing, why go to Shang to sort through everything to find what you want when it is likely easier and less effort to go to the vamps game and search for others wanting sexy times there.

[Arkandel]

@thatguythere said in Managing Player Expectations:

I can see this one for a couple of reasons, one Shang to me (never player there) seems very disjointed on a character level not a lot of continuity between scenes, not this could be totally wrong but it is the impression i have gotten over the years especially things like that ice cream character.

Shang has continuity (or used to), it's just that some people preferred doing their own sandbox stuff in private rooms.

The second obvious reason would be if vamps are their thing, why go to Shang to sort through everything to find what you want when it is likely easier and less effort to go to the vamps game and search for others wanting sexy times there.

That shouldn't be an issue. For starters you can create any character you want, including vampires, and since it's statless and there's no CGen process you can literally hit the grid in minutes. As for searching for others wanting sexy times, I don't need to explain why that would be easier on a game where +kinks is a coded command, right?

My only explanation (other than accounting for jerks) is poor self awareness. I.e. players who want mainly TS but tell themselves they're after metaplot, depth and all the other trappings of a non-TS game so they log on those to look for the former anyway.