Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance
-
There’s an audience for PvP. I am not in it, but it’s definitely there.
I would like whatever PvP games exist to be really upfront about what they are so people can self-select in or out. I’ve been frustrated by environments that were ‘we’re PvE with these exceptions that are poorly defined.’ Beyond that it kind of feels like…not my circus, not my monkeys, so something I should opine on minimally, though I think works better when the rules around PC conflict are very well-defined and have strict staff oversight (and so these environments become more work to staff, not less).
-
@Third-Eye said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
There’s an audience for PvP. I am not in it, but it’s definitely there.
I would like whatever PvP games exist to be really upfront about what they are so people can self-select in or out.
That really was the catalyst of our idea, honestly. A lot of games try to be everything to everybody to have the broadest appeal possible, so we wanted to go the opposite route - be as clear as possible what we are aiming for, realizing that will limit our audience. But hopefully, those players will embrace it and might be thirsting for this type of atmosphere. There are plenty of good games out there, but we wanted to try something different.
We THINK there will be an audience for this, and if there is not, oh well. Great thing about Ares is that the barrier for entry is so low thanks to how easy Faraday makes it that if it doesn’t take off, it’s not like we’ll have thrown away a year of our lives.
-
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
But honestly this to me seems very illustrative of a pretty common MU* thing, which is that players often communicate that they’re much better about consequences than they are in practice.
Is this a case of a loud minority that will get filtered out over the course of time, or is this a large portion of the folks that would engage in a more character against character atmosphere?
In my experience? It’s the majority.
I wish that weren’t the case. I would love to see more genuine constructive antagonism between characters that didn’t result in intolerable levels of OOC drama. I think that makes for better stories.
That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t have PvP. MUDs/RPIs do it all the time, but they have a different culture and different code in place to support it. Also, your level of tolerance for OOC drama may be greater than mine, or you might find that the pros outweigh the cons.
I just think you should be prepared for the fact that a great many MU players are consequence-averse, especially when those consequences are coming from the actions of fellow players and not imposed by staff or code. There’s a lot baked in to the culture to view it as PvP (player vs player) rather than as story-driven IC antagonism.
-
@Faraday said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I just think you should be prepared for the fact that a great many MU players are consequence-averse, especially when those consequences are coming from fellow players and not imposed by staff. There’s a lot baked in to the culture to view it as PvP (player vs player) rather than as story-driven IC antagonism.
The way I think of it is, some people just want to hole up and tell their own story arcs. They don’t want to mess with you and they don’t want you messing with them.
But there are also players (fewer, but they exist in substantial numbers) who feel empty if they can’t “influence the grid” in some way. They want consequences to exist.
I feel like a game can thread the needle and appeal to both sets of players. But you have to be aware of the split.
-
@Polk said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I feel like a game can thread the needle and appeal to both sets of players. But you have to be aware of the split.
This a good point. I think all too often there is a understanding it can not have both. While not easy, it can be achieved.
Step 1 - a game has to make it very clear.
-
PvP games can definitely work and can also be a ton of fun. However, it would require a lot more work than your usual PvE games where everyone can win. Staff will have to be on point and very hands on in PvP games, to ensure that the playing field is fair in terms of rules are being followed, that any loopholes to any rule in PvP engagement are removed before it can be fully abused, and constant checking in on all players (not just the loudest or flashiest) that they are having fun or if they have any concerns.
This also means that you have to size the game to the number of people that staff can handle, not just open the floodgates to anyone who wants to join. Staff will also have to be much more picky on who can play and be very willing to show people the door who are not cooperative with the staff. This, obviously, can stir up drama and accusations of staff favoritism, cliques, corruption, etc. This also will be a heavy drain on the staff, which will have to support each other heavily and have the good players support the staff as well. It will be a challenge but can be awesome if done correctly.
-
I think you have to be careful with the split between people wanting to play in their own story arcs and people wanting to play the larger game. If people’s private story arcs include stuff that would reverberate throughout the entire game, it’s no longer their private story arc. Similarly, larger game plot stuff can crash into the private story arcs people are trying to run for themselves. This is one of those staff awareness things that we often talk about. Staff doesn’t need to know the nitty gritty details of your private story arcs, but should at least be aware of the broad strokes in case a plot collision might happen.
I would have to imagine that on a full sandbox game, resolving story arcs against each other when players come together can lead to squabbles.
-
@Roz said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I actually think it’s hugely common that players do not have an entirely accurate read on how chill they are with consequences.
Most of us are really bad about putting ourselves in other people’s shoes, and what someone else thinks is a reasonable consequence may not even show up on our radar as a possible reaction.
-
@MisterBoring said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I think you have to be careful with the split between people wanting to play in their own story arcs and people wanting to play the larger game. If people’s private story arcs include stuff that would reverberate throughout the entire game, it’s no longer their private story arc. Similarly, larger game plot stuff can crash into the private story arcs people are trying to run for themselves. This is one of those staff awareness things that we often talk about. Staff doesn’t need to know the nitty gritty details of your private story arcs, but should at least be aware of the broad strokes in case a plot collision might happen.
This is kind of critical, and yes, in what we are envisioning, it would likely be low player base (because I think as discussed this is a self-selecting audience) with high staff involvement. Internally debating how much we want to use the jobs system to manage player vs player conflict or not.
An example that I use in talking about private vs reverberation is the Trojan War.
Let’s say the player of Helen wants to have a fun little plot where she gets kidnapped by the character of Paris.
Well, her character’s husband and family probably will have something to say about that, so even if she is ok with that conflict and Paris’ actions, it impacts a whole lot more people.
Which is why it’s kind of got to be one of those things where you opt-in to any consequences that anyone could conceive of as almost a blank check for walking in, subject to staff intervention if something appears to be griefing, gratuitous, OOCly motivated, etc.
I would like to think that with a mature player base, PVP conflict would be limited to IC stuff, and thinks like character death wouldn’t come along willy nilly like “I encounter a character on the grid and he looks funny, I want to kill him”.
I think it’ll be a work in progress to figure out where to draw the line between staff intervention and “let them play”.
-
@Alveraxus good luck lol
-
@imstillhere said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
@Alveraxus good luck lol
Thanks.
We’re really hoping that it’s more antagonistic scheming and jockeying for positions and influence, and not character on character violence, because there will be (ideally) ICly consequences among “society” that would stop people from shanking others in the street.
But we’re also fully prepared for this to catastrophically implode if the experiment doesn’t work.
-
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I would like to think that with a mature player base, PVP conflict would be limited to IC stuff, and thinks like character death wouldn’t come along willy nilly like “I encounter a character on the grid and he looks funny, I want to kill him”.
Heh, I witnessed exactly this happen in one of my first MU scenes.
I wish you luck (sincerely) because I like to see people try different things in the hobby. Just because conventional wisdom says it won’t work doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.
Just go into it eyes-open to the reality that this hobby as a whole has a terrible history when it comes to maturely separating IC and OOC conflict. I mean, I only ran PVE games for years and I still had to mediate all sorts of nonsense.
-
I think the biggest issue with these games is just that they can attract very certain types of toxic players that will make the experience miserable for everyone else, so it’s important to know what you’ll do about them from the outset, and learn how to spot them early.
For example, you will absolutely get players that just want to run around and PK everyone for any or even no reason whatsoever, so it’s best to have some guard rails in place at the start to curb that tendency and some explicit guidelines that say it’s not gonna be something you, as game staff, will permit (or whatever your policy on such things will be).
You’ll also get bully players that threaten to PK anyone they don’t OOCly like/anyone who criticizes them/anyone not doing exactly what they want, so that’s another type of player you’ll want some guard rails in to protect against.
That sorta thing.
-
@kalakh said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
For example, you will absolutely get players that just want to run around and PK everyone for any or even no reason whatsoever, so it’s best to have some guard rails in place at the start to curb that tendency and some explicit guidelines that say it’s not gonna be something you, as game staff, will permit (or whatever your policy on such things will be).
You’ll also get bully players that threaten to PK anyone they don’t OOCly like/anyone who criticizes them/anyone not doing exactly what they want, so that’s another type of player you’ll want some guard rails in to protect against.
I know I’ve mentioned character death, but really, it is intended as a polite society where for the most part player vs player conflict will be trying to scheme a family out of control of a particular port, or trying to jockey for recognition.
Actual violent acts between characters should be few and far between because there will be law (strict law) that governs things. So sure, you can stab a guy for looking at you sideways in the market, but then you’re going to end up potentially sentenced to death for committing murder.
-
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
So sure, you can stab a guy for looking at you sideways in the market, but then you’re going to end up potentially sentenced to death for committing murder.
While that’s totally a valid way to deal with that person, I think you may be overlooking the impact on other players. When you make it impossible to tell stories without worrying about someone griefing you for no reason, it ripples through the culture.
-
@Faraday said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
So sure, you can stab a guy for looking at you sideways in the market, but then you’re going to end up potentially sentenced to death for committing murder.
While that’s totally a valid way to deal with that person, I think you may be overlooking the impact on other players. When you make it impossible to tell stories without worrying about someone griefing you for no reason, it ripples through the culture.
I mean, I’m oversimplifying things. In the current model we are leaning towards, staff would need to be involved in any scene with potential character death where there might be a conflict.
You can’t necessarily stab a guy on 5th avenue and get away with it because there are also those who would intervene.
Really, focus is on subterfuge and scheming and ruining someone politically or economically, not facestabbing.
Nothing says staff can’t intervene in a griefing situation and say that the killing blow doesn’t actually kill the person, etc.
-
It’s infinitely easier for griefers to tear down someone’s work, because they don’t care that their gimmicky full-combat alt is going to go to jail if they’re going to get to murder the person they have a grudge against on their main.
Mostly, PvP punishes you for giving a shit.
-
@kalakh This.
Honestly, I think the thing PvP needs above all else is clarity, transparency, and systems. Hope for good actors, expect bad actors, but plan for the majority of people in the middle who can be good as long as they feel secure and like they understand their options and risks.
Don’t rely on IC ‘consequences’ to stop bad actors. Because what you see as IC consequences meant to discourage behavior, a griefing player sees as attention focused on me me me me me. The toxic PvP player LOVES to play the ‘villain’ and LOVES to experience (certain forms) of consequences because it means everyone else has to stop what they’re doing and Deal With This Guy. You can practically feel them on the other end of the screen, wanking furiously while everyone else’s fun grinds to a halt so that ‘IC consequences’ by means of imprisonment, trial, or punishment can take place - and they’ll drag it out as long as they can, because that’s longer focus and more spotlight. It won’t ever stop the IC behavior, because that player got exactly what they wanted from it: attention.
If you don’t want characters killing each other or only want it within specific bounds, then just state it clearly and make it clear that anyone breaking those bounds will be removed from the game without fuss or fanfare. Create transparent systems, do your best to make sure players understand the systems and outcomes, and ruthlessly cull bad actors the first time they step out of line.
-
@Pyrephox Yup. a Social Contract type framework is probably even more important for PvP than it is for more traditional STed roleplay. https://shatteredmu.com/wiki/ooc:policies
-
@Polk said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
The way I think of it is, some people just want to hole up and tell their own story arcs. They don’t want to mess with you and they don’t want you messing with them.
But there are also players (fewer, but they exist in substantial numbers) who feel empty if they can’t “influence the grid” in some way. They want consequences to exist.
I feel like you’re describing one extreme and then somewhere in the middle of a spectrum and trying to set them up as diametrically opposed when I’m not sure that they are. It feels to me like the majority of players want to have significant control over their own character’s story arc, but still influence the game world as a whole.
Or maybe that’s just me and I’m projecting. I certainly don’t see the latter group as being PvP-advocates (they certainly could be, but they don’t have to be). I also don’t know why a MUSH would particularly want players who are just going to hole up in their rooms and tell their own stories, except for the illusion of activity. But if you step off the extreme on that point of the spectrum and get to the players who mostly want to tell their own stories within a greater world – I think that those players work very well with the players who want to influence the grid, and I don’t think there’s much threading of the needle to be done.
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Let’s say the player of Helen wants to have a fun little plot where she gets kidnapped by the character of Paris.
I don’t think that theoretical Helen-player is the hide-in-their-room type, and has to know that running off with the wife of a proud king is going to have major impact on the grid.
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Actual violent acts between characters should be few and far between because there will be law (strict law) that governs things.
In my experience, PvP-eager players tend to be very bad at determining the “right” level of response to a threat. I know that I’m generalizing very broadly, but from what I’ve seen, even in social situations, the tendency seems to be to go from 0 to 100 immediately, because if you don’t go scorched earth, they’ll just come back and attack you. Never mind that a back-and-forth antagonism makes for great RP as long as both players are onboard for winning some and losing some.
I would suggest being very, very explicit in what is allowed/encouraged and what is not, and perhaps even putting in very clear bumpers like “This society is highly-policed and security-conscious, if your character attacks or murders someone, they will be caught and removed from the grid as they are held for trial, put on trial, and sentenced to imprisonment.” That’s probably too strong, not knowing the theme you’re looking at, but it would probably be good to have something in policy that makes it very clear that you’re looking for social violence, not physical violence, and that those going over the top into physical violence will not be tolerated. – Oh look, @Pyrephox got there before me!
