Optional Realities & Project Redshift
-
@Jaunt said:
ETA: And what you're doing, creating an environment that's not been done to death, is a great first step. I always like to think about 'surprise', too. When players aren't being surprised, then they're basically just walking through a story in their head for which they already know the ending. That's one aspect of a GM approach that can work wonders; you can kick players off of their straight, well-paved road, and then let them explore the woods. Who knows what they might find in there?
It's more or less the point. I... actually do kinda know what I'm doing.
I just don't tend to run things unless I like the idea enough due to the volume of work involved.(edit: Or I get so irritated with something I have to have a project, but those don't get far without the former.)
-
All the time people complain that there is not enough ice cream that's not been done before, and you take them to a place that does burnt sugar and salted caramel and gelato made with real lilac, and they order vanilla.
Repeating an old idea does not mean it's not still very good. WoD By Night remains popular because of its popularity, as well as people's laziness. I don't think this is the hobby to count laziness as a cardinal sin, but we can still accept it for what it is.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain said:
All the time people complain that there is not enough ice cream that's not been done before, and you take them to a place that does burnt sugar and salted caramel and gelato made with real lilac, and they order vanilla.
Repeating an old idea does not mean it's not still very good. WoD By Night remains popular because of its popularity, as well as people's laziness. I don't think this is the hobby to count laziness as a cardinal sin, but we can still accept it for what it is.
But discouraging new ideas by saying "The old ways work just fine" is pretty much just encouraging stagnation rather than growth.
-
@HelloProject said:
@Thenomain said:
All the time people complain that there is not enough ice cream that's not been done before, and you take them to a place that does burnt sugar and salted caramel and gelato made with real lilac, and they order vanilla.
Repeating an old idea does not mean it's not still very good. WoD By Night remains popular because of its popularity, as well as people's laziness. I don't think this is the hobby to count laziness as a cardinal sin, but we can still accept it for what it is.
But discouraging new ideas by saying "The old ways work just fine" is pretty much just encouraging stagnation rather than growth.
And encouraging new ideas just because they're new is also no good. Not that I don't agree with you; I think Ashes was fairly significant proof that 'you can't do it that way' just helps motivate me, but still. You have to be able to keep from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
-
@HelloProject said:
@Thenomain said:
All the time people complain that there is not enough ice cream that's not been done before, and you take them to a place that does burnt sugar and salted caramel and gelato made with real lilac, and they order vanilla.
Repeating an old idea does not mean it's not still very good. WoD By Night remains popular because of its popularity, as well as people's laziness. I don't think this is the hobby to count laziness as a cardinal sin, but we can still accept it for what it is.
But discouraging new ideas by saying "The old ways work just fine" is pretty much just encouraging stagnation rather than growth.
I don't know what games you've been on, but I've never heard stagnation being encouraged by saying "the old ways work just fine"**. I think that the Cult of the New is almost as dangerous as the Cult of the Old. The stereotypical young person sees the stereotypical old person as unwilling to change because new things are scary. The stereotypical old person sees the stereotypical young person as ignorant and with no regard to things that are that way for a reason.
They're both right.
Keeping things the way they are is correct because we understand how it works.
Ignoring the way things are is correct because it's the only way to understand how new things work.
I think anyone who clings to either one of these ideas is misguided, because we need both order and chaos, tradition and innovation. Whether or not people realize it, tradition is the foundation from which innovation grows.
So yeah, make all the WoD By Night games as you want. Innovation will happen regardless. And if this doesn't convince you, I have an ever-growing Github of Mux softcode to show you.
** Major Edit: Yes, I can think of new ideas being blocked under the banner "we don't need change", but I concede this kind of thought with the caveat that pushing change for the sake of change is dangerous to something that works, just like sticking doggedly with something that works is dangerous to the same working systems.
Or in other words, yes I agree that "no you can't this because we've never ever done that before!" is stupid, but it's just as stupid as "wheels are dated; fuck wheels!"
Acceptable is, "No you can't do this because it goes against the kind of game we're running right now." Acceptable is, "You know, the wheel sucks in this environment; have you ever thought about treads? Oo, let's do some stuff with legs!"
(I love that robot dog thing. Creepy as hell.)
Change to meet a demand, to solve a problem, or to play and discover new things. Don't just change; innovate.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain I'm not saying you're wrong in that these things don't work to attract a ton of players. But a lot of people also eat Pringles, and Pringles are complete garbage that literally cannot say that it's potato chips without having a lawsuit on its hands.
The fact that these games attract a ton of players doesn't make them good, it makes them games capable of attracting a ton of players. They're non-threatening MU* junk food with a wide open bag of candy for people to reach into.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against By Night games that limit their scope to just a few compatible spheres, because then you have a real game that can at least have a chance of functioning as something other than a fancy sandbox. But I can't in good faith say that the current status quo is anything resembling actual quality.
Maybe that's pretentious, maybe it's personal preference, but I'd rather people dump all their bad ideas out there until a good one falls out, because it's still better than the cookie cutter climate of mediocrity that keeps being perpetuated due to the misconception that a large player-base is the same as having a good game.
By that logic, Friedberg & Seltzer movies are good because a lot of people saw them. Inception is good because it made millions of people feel smart by spoon feeding them hamfisted symbolism. American Idol is somehow meaningful even though no one can remember more than maybe three or four winners, but millions of people watch it. And many more similar examples.
It's one thing when the old way works and facilitates growth and creativity, it's another thing when the old way is a stagnant testament to mediocrity and appeals to a need for instant gratification and having the highest numbers possible.
The old way isn't going anywhere, because it works for what it is. A five star restaurant isn't going to put Burger King out of business, because there's a demand for cheap food that doesn't really challenge you at all. But people have visions of fancy restaurants. People don't always know what they want, because the option hasn't been presented to them yet.
It's up to people to try those ideas, and if they fail, they fail. Sure, a restaurant is a huge investment, but a MU really isn't to anywhere near that degree. A creator doesn't need to go through an entire focus group to try their idea. They should simply try it, and those big non-threatening, easily digestible chains aren't going anywhere, nor will they be hurt by the attempt. Hell, I'll probably end up playing one again if I get bored enough.
Also, my comment about encouraging stagnation wasn't saying that this is a heavily prevalent mindset, I was directly responding to your comment specifically.
-
"Good" is an awful metric. Do Pringles taste bad? Are they unhealthy? Do they cost too much? They sure as hell good at the most important metric to Kellogg: They make a shit ton of money. Also: There is positive social goodwill toward the brand; the name Pringles itself has value beyond monetary.
I don't think this kind of deconstruction is useful, though. I can both agree and disagree with you, which I have and will continue to do. Because you kids these days.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain said:
"Good" is an awful metric. Do Pringles taste bad? Are they unhealthy? Do they cost too much? They sure as hell good at the most important metric to Kellogg: They make a shit ton of money. Also: There is positive social goodwill toward the brand; the name Pringles itself has value beyond monetary.
I don't think this kind of deconstruction is useful, though. I can both agree and disagree with you, which I have and will continue to do. Because you kids these days.
I guess ultimately this is an extremely subjective topic. But I do genuinely want nothing more than for new and interesting things to happen. It's true, "good" isn't really a, well, good metric, since as I said, I occasionally play on these games I say are stagnant too. Junk food isn't necessarily "good", but it can be satisfying.
But also...
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE YOUNG PEOPLE!
edit: I apologize, I just realized that this gif is from Jimmy Fallon. I do not endorse Jimmy Fallon (except when he gave us a Kenan & Kel reunion).
-
I understand where you're coming from. @HelloProject. I also would love to see new stuff happen, new ideas explored, but as someone who kvetched to Onyx Path about what they did to My Beloved Fairest Changelings, sometimes those new things absolutely suck.
I'm now just echoing Sunny, so Imma go eat some robot prunes, now.
-
@Thenomain said:
I don't know what games you've been on, but I've never heard stagnation being encouraged by saying "the old ways work just fine"**. I think that the Cult of the New is almost as dangerous as the Cult of the Old. The stereotypical young person sees the stereotypical old person as unwilling to change because new things are scary. The stereotypical old person sees the stereotypical young person as ignorant and with no regard to things that are that way for a reason.
They're both right.
Keeping things the way they are is correct because we understand how it works.
Ignoring the way things are is correct because it's the only way to understand how new things work.
I think anyone who clings to either one of these ideas is misguided, because we need both order and chaos, tradition and innovation. Whether or not people realize it, tradition is the foundation from which innovation grows.
You've hit onto the important something about innovation here. New (re: inexperienced) people with new (re: untested) ideas are more likely to fail in their initial endeavors, while old (re: experienced) people maintaining the status quo (re: their personal preference) are more likely to reach an expected outcome with their project.
But, the best case scenario in my mind is this:
New (re: inexperienced) people with new (re: untested) ideas are taken under the wing of old (re: experienced) people maintaining the status quo (re: their personal preference). The new folks get experience that helps inform them of how to have ideas that are actual innovations that can succeed, and the old folks learn from the new folks what of their design philosophies are good, what are simply tradition for the sake of tradition (or ease), and how they might shift their perspectives to make their games more appealing to a younger, more inexperienced group of players.
In short, it's the experienced folks who should drive for innovation, using their experience to guide them around the pitfalls of treading new ground. And if they can teach what they've learned about the hobby to newer members of our community, then those newer members will eventually push that innovation even further -- and, in the process of evolution, hopefully what we do finds a way to be more accessible, and we learn how to tell better collaborative stories.
But what us vets have to learn from new players or would-be developers is important, too; they come to us with (relatively) few preconceived notions on what our games are and what they should be. They don't even know how they work, at first. They're the ones best poised, in many ways, to show us what sort of innovations might be necessary to retain more players. And, in a hobby where the goal is so rarely profit, players (and what players bring to our games with their roleplay and activity) are sort of our currency.
ETA: Only somewhat related, it's the youth that generally has more free time to play, and more friends willing to spend their free time to try out something new. For most of us, as we get older, our circle of friends narrows and cements itself, and our responsibilities grow to the point where we just don't have the free-time to play as much as we used to.
-
@Jaunt's perspective there seems to be a really good balance of both things. So, yeah, I can definitely get behind that line of thinking. There are definitely things to learn from more experienced players, and what can be learned from the status quo to innovate in a productive direction in the first place.
I blame Taco Bell for inspiring my anti-old guard rebellion with their millennial targeted advertising of forced memes.
-
@Thenomain said:
The stereotypical young person sees the stereotypical old person as unwilling to change because new things are scary. The stereotypical old person sees the stereotypical young person as ignorant and with no regard to things that are that way for a reason.
They're both right.
Keeping things the way they are is correct because we understand how it works.
Ignoring the way things are is correct because it's the only way to understand how new things work.
I have this amusing conversation all the time in my circles (embedded systems). Newcomers to the field, especially those who have come to it from other areas of coding (like the wasteful pigs that make web apps) are utterly shocked when they find out the most common processors in embedded space (by far) are four-bit processors.
Yes, even in a world that has 32-bit MCUs like the STM32F030F4P6, a TSSOP20 chip that contains within it a full-blown 32-bit ARM Cortex-M0 core (for $0.33 retail singly), engineers will reach for a 4-bit chip more often. Why?
Because they're easy to understand.
It's that simple. When you're building hardware that has to run for months to years on end without stopping, without failing, you want something that's simple and predictable, not something so big and complicated that no single human being can know all of its intricacies. You can't just plug-and-pray in this realm. And 4-bit processors are so dirt-simple that most interested electrical engineers have probably made one for fun from macro-scale TTL parts.
8-bit microcontrollers are next in line. There's about one of those used for ever three or four 4-bit ones in a system somewhere.
32-bit MCUs are used only in the biggest, most complicated embedded packages, and then they're used mainly for very high-level control. There's probably a simpler 32-bit MCU (Cortex-M0 or equivalent) at the core of a device for every 10 8-bit ones out there. Nobody will use, say, an STM32F7 line chip in a heart monitor, for example, because there's absolutely no way you'd be able to guarantee that it will function in all possible circumstances. (I'm not sure it's even possible for a single person to know every piece of the STM32F7 chips.) You might be able to find someone who knows all of a Cortex-M0 (like the STM32F0 line) core if they've dedicated a rather enormous chunk of their brain to it. (The M0 itself has about 12,000 transistors which is amazingly simple and small for a 32-bit processor, but the peripherals will kill.)
Sometimes the old ways are, in fact, the best. Not because they're the best in functionality, but because they're simple enough we can actually comprehend how they'll work.
I think anyone who clings to either one of these ideas is misguided, because we need both order and chaos, tradition and innovation. Whether or not people realize it, tradition is the foundation from which innovation grows.
And sometimes innovation needs to grow elsewhere. I laugh, long and hard, at the "innovation" of the so-called "Internet of Things" that's bringing large, bloated, horrendously complicated and ill-defined software stacks (like Node.js) into the embedded space. And I'm getting the popcorn ready for when the disasters start to strike.
-
This reminds me of how YouTube and Facebook are horrifyingly bloated sites now, rather than focusing on being simple and functional. They're complicated and more difficult to understand than ever.
-
@HelloProject said:
This reminds me of how YouTube and Facebook are horrifyingly bloated sites now, rather than focusing on being simple and functional. They're complicated and more difficult to understand than ever.
Yeah, I definitely think that innovation needs to be geared towards making things easier to design for newcomers, easier to learn to play for newcomers, more aesthetically sleek and appealing (to attract more newcomers), and any feature enhancements need to be more intuitive to use than legacy commands. It's relatively easy for MU* veterans to learn new syntax (especially if they're intuitive). Legacy engines rely on some pretty non-intuitive mechanics and commands to manipulate things, and that's definitely a hurdle for new players who aren't used to text interfaces.
Basically, innovation needs to not be bloating. It needs to be streamlining, first and foremost. That's a big reason that I've enjoyed working with Evennia for REDSHIFT, even though I was far more familiar with the OpenRPI engine that I helped to build. OpenRPI might be familiar (for RPI players) and have superior features already built into it, but all of its progress has been built on top of derivations of derivations dating all the way back to DIKU.
Working from the ground up is more work, but has a lot of advantages. It's pretty easy to take old ideas and implement them more intuitively, while tying in more standard features with newer features in ways that actually make sense. Sure, I can't create a new game with Evennia in two months (not yet, at least, until more development plug-ins stack up) ... but I can create a game that is better, more stable, easier to learn, and doesn't have random chunks of legacy engines that are just code trash now.
-
I'm really interested in Evennia, but I'm no where near at a level of coding where I can even remotely contribute anything helpful to the discussion.
I only know about Evennia because I'm friends with Volund. I actually thought Volund created it, but I guess I misunderstood.
-
@WTFE said:
And sometimes innovation needs to grow elsewhere.
The point I was making there is that new ideas come from old ideas, even sometimes from the pure rejection of old ideas but I would put down good money that this last kind of new idea is doomed to failure because it's not grounded in something that we understand. (Edit: I conede that an untested idea tried enough becomes tested. This is another good way to go from new to working, but without hitting the line of "based on established idea" along the way. Failure still teaches us a lot.)
Application of those new ideas does matter, and sometimes you just have to let people learn all on their own why the grown ups don't do things that way. I sure as hell am glad for the increasing processor size, just not for micro controllers.
Unrelated, I used to get frustrated at the ease of hacking in various near-future RPG systems because I thought that nobody would possibly create a networked device without some decently robust network protection. Then the Internet of Things happened. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
That is all.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain said:
And sometimes innovation needs to grow elsewhere.
The point I was making there is that new ideas come from old ideas...
Indeed. But sometimes old ideas are still in use for a reason was kind of my point.
And to be fair, modern 4-bit processors, to continue harping on my theme, are far more capable and useful than even the 8-bit processors of 20 years ago. They may be "only" 4 bits wide in the data bus, but they pack a Hell of a punch in that small size.
Application of those new ideas does matter, and sometimes you just have to let people learn all on their own why the grown ups don't do things that way. I sure as hell am glad for the increasing processor size, just not for micro controllers.
You and me both. I love the fact that I have an 80s-era supercomputer in my (aging, never particularly top-of-the-line) laptop and a 70s-era supercomputer in my phone. I was just amplifying on the side of your "change for the sake of change" thing.
Unrelated, I used to get frustrated at the ease of hacking in various near-future RPG systems because I thought that nobody would possibly create a networked device without some decently robust network protection. Then the Internet of Things happened. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
When this whole IoT thing started I was convinced that the WiFi devices were going to be the first major failures because it was obvious that WiFi is the worst conceivable platform for delivering connected, smart devices (like light bulbs).
Silly me. I keep forgetting that the market invariably goes for the worst possible design in anything with a gusto.
-
@Jaunt said:
@HelloProject said:
This reminds me of how YouTube and Facebook are horrifyingly bloated sites now, rather than focusing on being simple and functional. They're complicated and more difficult to understand than ever.
Yeah, I definitely think that innovation needs to be geared towards making things easier to design for newcomers, easier to learn to play for newcomers, more aesthetically sleek and appealing (to attract more newcomers), and any feature enhancements need to be more intuitive to use than legacy commands. It's relatively easy for MU* veterans to learn new syntax (especially if they're intuitive). Legacy engines rely on some pretty non-intuitive mechanics and commands to manipulate things, and that's definitely a hurdle for new players who aren't used to text interfaces.
See, I think I have to disagree with you here. Yes, these things are good... to a point. Most of the games that I enjoy playing are games that are definitely something that has complexity already built into the gaming system that you're playing, and there is only so far that you can simplify things and code for the least common denominator before you start to double back on yourself, or the quality and robustness of other things start to suffer.
Take WoD dice for example. It's a terribly complex system even before you get into the coding aspects of it. Roll X Ten-sided dice Y times, and re-roll on a 10, unless you have 9-again, at which point roll 9's and 10's again, except with 8-again, and oh, don't forget rote, weakness, etc, etc, on down the line.
With this, you have two options. One command with in-line features that tell the thing what it is you're trying to do, or a bunch of different commands to offer the various styles in which it can be done.
The simplest way, of course, is to just have it to the 10-again, and then have players track what needs to be re-rolled. One command, and done. Easy peasy, right? Except if you don't want them to have to track that...
It goes on from there.
Sometimes, coding for the LCD is not the most viable option, and expecting players to put some investment into learning the system and the command structure does, in fact, end up being your best option, even if it's not perfectly intuitive for a newbie or is somewhat complex.
-
@Derp said:
Sometimes, coding for the LCD is not the most viable option, and expecting players to put some investment into learning the system and the command structure does, in fact, end up being your best option, even if it's not perfectly intuitive for a newbie or is somewhat complex.
Absolutely. If you're doing WoD (or D&D, or some other established system) then there's a benefit to sticking with their system. Anyone who learns WoD will be able to understand the mechanics of your game.
I personally prefer creating my own combat systems from scratch, because I feel like I can create things that were designed to work specifically for my game. When I've tried to adapt WoD or D&D for MU*s before, it can sometimes feel like I'm trying to shoehorn a square peg through a round hole.
But I'm also not necessarily talking about that. I'll give a few examples of some things that I think could be more intuitive:
Pose/Emote: While I think that "emote" is probably a more intuitive command for new players (since its used in chat rooms and other places, and everyone knows what emoji is currently) ... it still feels a little un-intuitive to me in the way that it's often executed. Is there any reason that, if I were to design a game from scratch, I couldn't do this:
The winter wind howls as it tears through the camp, blowing snow about wildly in its bitter dance. Around the campfire, those gathered to listen in to the storyteller's yarn huddle closer to the flickering flames, struggling to stay warm even as the fire weathers the start of a frozen night. A young babe begins to cry, pressing its red nose to @mother's breast. "Come, little one", @ says with warmth in his old, learned voice. "Do not weep so. The Ice Spirits are hungry, but they cannot hurt you here. The magic of the Tale keeps them at bay. Let me tell you a story ..."
As @ transitions into the start of his story, he pulls @hood up over his head and throws a handful of some strange powder into the fire. Suddenly, the waning flames leap into the air, coming to life in a burst of color: red, blue, purple, green. The fire dies down a moment later, but stands taller and stronger against the whipping winter wind than before.
In the above cases, instead of creating different types of command qualifiers for emoting/saying/talking, I'm basically letting people write prose freely, and just letting them use @ for when they need to target themselves, an object, or another character. A modern engine will see @ and parse, knowing that we're now talking about an emote. It can even parse secondary words like tell/whisper/shout/say/etc, so that you don't need seven different commands about talking. One command that's smart enough to figure out what affects to apply to your character's speech can be enough.
What about status commands? To look at your score sheet, or see what affects might be on your character? To look at your account information? To see how many players are online?
What about using simple GUI menu interfaces that can plug in to MUSHclient or a webclient? It doesn't have to mean anything fancy, but even a simple health bar and menu buttons can go a long way towards making the interface a little easier to get for new players. Many new players claim to be turned off by ASCII prompts and ASCII representation of things. Why do we still rely on ASCII when webclients and MUSHclient can do GUI rather easily nowadays?
What about tying the backend of your help files in-game to an actual help wiki with organized hyperlinks, using more very simple GUI?
What about web-based OLC (some engines do it) to help with building and remove the need for developers to understand strange building tool/soft-code syntax?
I like to think about something that I refer to as "player command upkeep". Can I look at my game's commands, watch players/testers, and say, "Hmm. They're having to use the 'scan' command every few seconds while they're out in the wilderness. Is that too much?" ... or, "Wow, they have to type seven commands just to empty out their backpack, organize the items on a shelf, and then fill their backpack up with water bottles. Why so much spam?"
So, what can we streamline? Combat's its own, separate sort of thing. It's the most common interfaces and commands that I think are most worth looking at. Consistency in syntax style across all social commands. What's the simplest approach to emoting/posing that still allows for the same breadth of versatility?
Why have players use '*' or '~' or '%' to target other objects/characters in emotes/etc, when they're used to using '@' nowadays in social media?
I'm pretty much throwing a ton of random thoughts out there, but they're just a sampling of the sorts of things that I think about a lot. I've played and designed MU*s for so long (as have many of you) that it's really easy to take for granted that something should work a certain way just because it's always worked that way before.
If you're starting from scratch, or near scratch, I've definitely found it worth it to keep your end goal/aesthetics in mind, but be open to considering each command and whether or not it could be streamlined and made more intuitive for new players.
That doesn't mean designing for the Lowest Common Denominator (I don't think I'd call new players that anyways, they're just inexperienced; each one of them could be a gold mine of potential). It just means challenging myself to spend some time really thinking about how the interface could be better, easier to learn, more intuitive, and all without sacrificing versatility and function.
Ultimately, I'd rather make vets learn new syntaxes if it means new players will be able to catch onto those syntaxes easily. Vets have played enough different types of MU*s that adapting to new syntaxes is much, much easier for them than it is for new players.
-
For the average RPer, almost all of this is going to be entirely irrelevant when it comes to simply wanting a simple way to get a game up. But if someone did want to do D&D or something, a simple dice roller would suffice, as it typically does outside of MUing. Or macros, which is as complex as I've seen things get outside of a MU environment. It's quick and dirty, and it seems to work very well for people. As long as there's a functional sheet, you're good to go.
We're used to all sorts of overly complex code and a million different commands to do a million different things, but I'd be willing to imagine that this is more off-putting than anything. None of this even exists in the average internet roleplay. Having a "Baby's first MU" package would do a lot to get people into the hobby, though there's not a lot that one can do about paying for server space. Short of that being addressed, free non-MU options are always going to seem like the favorable alternative to create an RP.
Once one gets used to the hobby itself, and perhaps gets a taste for wanting to do something more complex, if they do at all, then they can move onto learning an established thing like Penn. But again, as long as it costs money to make a MU*, I think that's going to remain off-putting.
Too bad there's not a MUing equivalent of Byond Tabletop.
edit: Byond Tabletop allowed you to customize a sheet for people to use, with a shitty version of HTML. You could create different rooms and stuff. And rather than paying for server space, you simply hosted the server on your own computer.
