View Single Post
Old 09-27-2010, 09:33 PM   #136
silvarilon
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 144
silvarilon is on a distinguished road
Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs

Mmmm, a very good illustration of the conflict between RP vs achievement.
The caravan player obviously wants some achievement, too. Otherwise the lack of profits in comparison to the other players wouldn't be an issue. Likely he wanted achievement for a social reason (wants to be socially respected as the caravan leader who runs profitable expeditions) rather than for the achievement reason. But he still wants an achievement.

And the other players are also aiming for the achievement, without putting in the RP work, additionally they're trying to maximize profits, rather than take whatever makes the most sense to trade.

Again, though, it's a good example of something that can be balanced by a game system (whether coded or staff-run)

The first, obvious thing, is to limit the number of trips. If the RP-guy is the ideal we should be striving for, and he does one trip each year, then limit it to one or two trips a year. That instantly reduces the impact to him - yes, the others can still rush up there and make a bag of money, but they can only do that once a year, rather than once a week. So they end up with similar amounts (even if they put in less work) rather than significantly more profit.

Continuing from that, you can put in RP information. If your staff run NPCs or similar, you could have an NPC that arrived from the trading destination and, if asked, would be able to tell what items are buying at high or low prices. Without taking to an appropriate NPC, the non-RPers would be rolling the dice on whether they get a profit. Their desire to profit will encourage them to seek out these NPCs and roleplay - but even then the caravan leader has an advantage. If the NPCs are rare (they can be rare if you're only going once a year!) then the achievers need to find one themselves. The caravan-leader, having involved a whole lot of other players in the plot, has a lot more eyes on the street. Only one of them needs to talk with the NPC and pass on the information. Additionally, it gives an actual goal that the roleplayers can be aiming for.

So why didn't staff enforce the setting?

That's silly! They had plenty of options. They could have still allowed the trading mechanics, but had some mechanic allowing those players to get caught (say, something like "I want to put a tail on that guy. If he trades without a licence, he should get in trouble") or just had the traders buy and sell for less. They're not going to buy black-market goods, and risk alienating their primary trading partners, for the same price that they'd buy legit goods.

Mmmm, yeah. I don't know the story (of course) so I'm not judging, but this sounds like very poor form. Adding new options for players is great. Adding new options that make a previous option pointless is bad.

If those players are obtaining licences, presumably they're going through some sort of process - so why can't they just get a licence from the guild proper? And if not, how is this different licence, well, different? Is it once-off? Does it allow trading of different types of goods? If it's just the same, then how does the game benefit from the duplication? (the game may well benefit. I don't know the situation. But the staff should consider what the pros and cons are.)

Mmmm. But that's just bad game balance if they don't enforce consequences for actions. Those other characters should have been able to profit (maybe profit more) by buying and selling on the black market, but they also should have run the risks, and incurred the costs, of doing so.

I agree with this, however I've run into many players that strongly resist planning RP. And I've also run into problems where an unexpected player interacts with a planned plot, and the players who had planned events rigidly resist any change of course.

I'm not sure if I have any ideas of what the "happy medium" is here...

That's always going to happen, though. Mistakes will be made. It's reasonable, as long as those mistakes can be worked around and corrected. Often players will be more aware of game lore than an individual admin.

That said, any big game events or personalities should have enough information that they can be maintained relatively consistently. It is annoying, but doesn't matter terribly if the captain of the guards changes personality from a snotty arrogant individual into a friendly gambler. What matters more is if the captain of the guards previously hated pirates with a passion, and now allies with them, without a significant reason or event to change his mind. Or if he previously refused any help to individuals that weren't either noble or worked for him, and now he takes the side of a commoner against one of his guards. Those events that will have a significant impact on the outcome of a plot should be consistent.

I can't criticize the admin. If they're incompetent, then... well, I can't expect them to do any better than their best.

What I'd expect is communication. The player should be able to say "Hey, what's going on? Shouldn't B happen?" and the admin should be self confident enough to say "You're right, but we really need C to happen for this plot to progress. Sorry for railroading you, but it was a necessity"

In an ideal situation, things would follow logically, and the outcome of the plot would be based on the players actions. We know that's not always possible. Where it's not possible, there should be good communication between players and admin - something that unfortunately doesn't always happen. But certainly something that can *always* be improved.

Yeah. But that point, things have really gone haywire. The player should have been told, way before that, about how C had to be the outcome. And asked not to push for B.

Again, not my ideal. I'd like players to have the ability to control the outcome (as long as that outcome leads sensibly from the players actions) - but I recognize that sometimes staff just need to make C happen instead of B.

The player either decides if they can accept that favouritism, and plays on. Or they find a way around it (such as by brown-nosing and becoming a favourite themselves), or they move onto another game.

One of the problems you mentioned above was players trying to change the game, rather than fit in with what's expected. If admins want to run the game by showing favouritism, well, that's their choice. I don't agree with that choice, but it's their call.

Agreed.

I think you covered everything I mentioned. I'm interested to hear more about examples or causes of declining RP, though. I like the opportunity to try and design ways to admin the game that will minimize or remove the problems. Identifying the problems is the first (and often hardest) step in that.

Take care, hope you feel better soon.
silvarilon is offline   Reply With Quote