|  | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:28 pm |  |
some resource that only one clan could control. Something immobile, so you would literally have to try and hold it, or something that only keeps for a certain period of time. Just some resource that actually one one group can have.
But if the pbase is still really clinging to the idea of non-conflict, they would just hand it out to everyone or have divided control. I dunno, it's sort of a lose-lose situation unless the admins AND the clanleads and some of the pbase get on a bandwagon with ideas. Like we are trying to do here, I suppose.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:35 pm | |
| HAL wrote: |
| So, what would something beyond a background to have a sensible conflict over be? |
| Tiamat wrote: |
| If there's some super secret technology inside Hyperion, it'd stir up a lot of intrigue to be able to give players some kind of super secret tech to fight over that (maybe, maybe not?) was seemingly left behind. |
I should've clarified in my example that they left behind it in the wilderness. Why do countries wage war on others? Because of limited resources. If your reality is that everything you'd ever want isn't contested, because it's unlimited, you truly have a utopia. But for a game, a utopia is quite boring.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:38 pm | |
| Moriarty wrote: |
| I was referring to PCs designed in such a way as to find themselves compelled by some sense of belonging/enmity, some sense of cause or wrongdoing - which from what I can tell, ought not to be too difficult in PRPI. |
I mean to say that, to a much greater extent than I think people take into account, that's everyone in a Family. And everyone kept out of a Family for intrinsic or extrinsic reasons. So, everyone.
It's not a matter of needing more PCs with backgrounds tailored toward promoting conflict. Those can help, but they can also be rather pointlessly destructive, depending on how they're handled.
It's a matter of people taking into account the story between the lines, digging it up, embracing it, as opposed to proceeding based only on the information provided to them by the sterile code environment.
| Moriarty wrote: |
| Largely because this has never actually worked in the past. It can and has worked for small groups working in concert, but not for a playerbase at large. See post above for reference to inescapable mediocrity. |
I don't really accept the logic of any argument based on the premise that most people just suck too much to make it work. I don't think it's lack of ability that holds people back, I think it's the value system they're working with. They put effort into what they value, and slack on what they don't value. I do it, too, of course. Everyone does. The only pre-requisite for what I'm suggesting is that the majority (or a strong minority) of people agree on a particular hierarchy of values, one that doesn't place code success at the top, and from what I've seen this is far from an impossibility. It hasn't happened yet, but it might just take the right distribution of the right players in the right positions for something amazing to materialize.
Some will lead and some will follow (until they have more experience), but everyone can get there if they actually want to.
| Moriarty wrote: |
| If I didn't know better, sir, I'd say you were propositioning me. I'm a married man, you know. |
I thought you were an expert at subtlety.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:54 pm | |
| padweld999 wrote: |
some resource that only one clan could control. Something immobile, so you would literally have to try and hold it, or something that only keeps for a certain period of time. Just some resource that actually one one group can have.
But if the pbase is still really clinging to the idea of non-conflict, they would just hand it out to everyone or have divided control. I dunno, it's sort of a lose-lose situation unless the admins AND the clanleads and some of the pbase get on a bandwagon with ideas. Like we are trying to do here, I suppose. |
This is what I was somewhat worried about. We've bandied the idea about upstairs, giving 1 clan something the other clan wants. At this point it'd have to be overpowered to make other people not shrug in indifference. And how would they get it through conflict, as clan-halls are super-secure indestructibunkers (by design).
With things as they are, the item would just be shared.
I look back to SOI, where there was a conflict between the Battalions and the Wardenry. Why was there that conflict? They didn't have things the other people wanted, they were on the same side. They worked together on occasion, but there were issues. Same thing between Battalion Soldiers and the various hangers-on that would come through. Same side, different stuff, but there was conflict. Battalion soldiers might not like that the civies were undisciplined, didn't follow the rules, couldn't be trusted, etc.
Here... what's the difference ICly between a New Guard and a Red? Clearly there is a difference, but not an extreme one. Now, the difference between a Niner and either of those two is much more pronounced. That could explain some of the one-sided conflict? That two clans are very similar in nature, enough to essentially act in coordination, while another is philosophically different enough in the type of players it has that it naturally generates tension and issues?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| "Was a Niner once, then I took a gato bite t'th'knee," a bald, gaunt-faced lanky young fellow says a bit randomly as he looks his knee over. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:54 pm | |
WELL. Given the apparently lack of interest in background or vNPCs for that matter, I was going to suggest something like a monthly review involving "public sentiment" in each of the three families, and maybe some roiling tensions out on the streets that escalate further and further the more Crazy Jack of the Niners and Duke Ellington of the New Guard get along, which you know, given background, doesn't make sense, but given game sentiments, would make enough sense.
Though that's just an example and actually doesn't reflect IC realities, it's succinct response to getting people to think about something, like how echoes tend to get people to think about the weather.
This doesn't actually help unless there are game design choices supporting continued tensions between the families, but as a person who has interactions with at least one or three people in every clan, I already agree it'd be difficult to revert the state of the board back to paranoia and fear of being too friendly cross-clan.
There's no incentive to be, so some have to be made to not be. If that makes any sense.
ETA: If there was some benefit, by game design choice, maybe involving vNPCs, maybe involving resources that are invaluable to a clan and cut down on the amount of work needed to be done every cycle, and the only way to maintain control over these things was to remain at odds with the other two clans...
So far, I got ideas but nothing exact or specific enough that deserves mention. Which frustrates me, but allows me to admit that game design isn't easy, so I don't fault the admins for where the game is right now, in terms of those design choices, though at a point where background means nothing, I kind of wish there was only one clan at all, or no clans period.
It might've turned out differently if that was the case.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:58 pm | |
I'm edging slightly toward the idea that, if the differences, day to day experience wise, of clans were further apart, then perhaps there would be more of the type of subtle tension that we are looking for.
We do, at the end of the day, want more, "You're different than me, so I don't like you as much as my brother," than, "We're basically the same, we're brothers."
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:57 pm | |
The reason why the gangs currently don't have much of an identity is because there's no documented history to do so. A vague history of how each gang came about isn't sufficient enough to create an identity that makes you think differently than that other gangbanger on the street.
That said, I'm not faulting or pointing fingers at anybody. It's just an unfortunate fact. I don't even think Atonement BETA's documentation was the greatest - it could've used improvement. But the fact that it detailed a span of about fifty years of history on why each clan is doing what they're doing, and where they're going, helped generate conflict. For example, the Vultures underwent two downsizings (used to be the largest under the first leader's watch), and their leader at the time of BETA (hell, I even forgot his name and I wrote him) is the type of leader that just wants to keep the status quo, while his sons were way more ambitious about restoring former glory.
On the other hand, Ramon Duoms, the leader of the Anarchists and a refugee of the destroyed Reims, had a fight to pick with New Phoenix. Etc. etc. People have reasons to be where they are and why they think the way they do, and their goals are different.
As that's not possible though, as HAL said, encouraging exclusivity can help. Why not introduce limited resource nodes in the new expansion of the wilderness and let players research crafts or something that use these resources? At least there, players will start to really think about who they take on their expeditions, and in doing so create exclusive experiences amongst themselves.
EDITED: In a sense, you're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for game design if what you want to promote is exclusivity when the culture is already fostered to be buddy-buddy. There's no way of promoting exclusivity if you don't introduce something that gives a reason to be exclusive, whether by geological location (not really an option here, just an example), or otherwise. At least giving players the option will allow them to make choices of sharing resources or not. It also gives the movers and shakers that want to change up the status quo the option, and the reasons to want such a thing.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:29 pm | |
| Tiamat wrote: |
| Why not introduce limited resource nodes in the new expansion of the wilderness and let players research crafts or something that use these resources? At least there, players will start to really think about who they take on their expeditions, and in doing so create exclusive experiences amongst themselves. |
I agree it would be cool to have something that promotes exclusivity in the way you suggest, but I have grave reservations about resource-and-exploration-based carrots for people to fight over.
I realize that part of the point is not the fight, per se, but the experience of exclusive Family-based activity, and I think that could be a very good thing.
But I also think that a huge part of why there's not much difference among the Families in practice is that they're all trying to achieve more or less the same goals -- get lots of stuff, do lots of crafts, sport lots of bling. More rare resources to fight over just means more emphasis on the same old stuff that everyone has in common.
It also means that if any Family wanted to deviate from the resource-and-exploration game (distinguishing them ideologically from the other Families in the process), they would have a hard time doing so without just falling off the map altogether. The Niners, for instance, are actually in a pretty good position to be able to try and play a different kind of game, but it would mean falling behind in the all-important-and-compulsory Crafts Race, which is a pretty prohibitive discouragement.
Absolutely there's not a lot of detailed history written, but I don't think it would take much to write some. But working relationships have already been formed, practices already solidified, attitudes already adopted, when nobody was really concerned that there wouldn't be enough conflict later.
It would take a concerted effort (and some consideration the unique history of each clan [which I think people, particularly clan leadership, should feel a lot more comfortable embellishing]) to shift things in a different direction. Or you could put a band-aid on it by putting a unique resource node somewhere in the wilderness -- but I don't think that would produce any appreciable differences among the experiences within each clan, just a difference in power and prestige based on who actually won the race.
I completely agree with promoting an experience of exclusivity (though obviously one that still promotes interaction among different Families), I just think focusing on resources and crafts is maybe only going to exacerbate the problem of everybody having more or less the same ideology, methodology, goals, etc.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:44 pm | |
Bartleby: I think you're right about shifting gears where families are concerned. It's okay to actually want the same things (resources) if your goals are different, so introducing new resource nodes in the wilderness isn't necessarily a band-aid. It only encourages the same goals if there are no other goals to strive for. But it's definitely not the entire solution, I agree. I think the unfortunate truth is that you might need to either rehaul the clans as they are, or let them undergo some kind of reincarnation and let them drop off, to make room for new movers and shakers. Introducing new documentation at this point in the game would probably feel awkward and even more artificial than before.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:52 pm | |
| HAL wrote: |
So, what game design changes would prompt low level tension?
What we have coming down the pipe:
Updated wilderness with more numerous but smaller scale scav sites.
Updated wildlife that takes group size into account to scale. |
Well for starters, excellent job on those two points. Whether or not one can implement code to support desired socioeconomic realities aside, one can certainly remove/edit features that encourage the wrong sort of IG realities, specifically those that foster frequent, habitual and, consequently, friendly cooperation.
[As a side note, despite Bartleby's assertion to the otherwise, people that frequently cooperate to mutual gain tend to lose sight of larger struggles of class. He mentioned the India/Pakistan conflict - the vast majority of Indians and Pakistanis tend to get along more than well when actually put into regular contact with each other. It's only in the abstract sense, removed from direct contact, that the enmity burns deep. My point being that subtle tensions may survive cooperative atmospheres, but that cooperative atmospheres do NOT promote subtle tensions, quite the opposite, actually.]
In general, massive groups of anything unless its a giant RPT (still not a fan of those) or an event where the majority of PCs are spectators (trials, executions, duels, etc.) are not (in my experience at least, such as it is) conducive to any sort of RP, and they're particularly not helpful when you want to create a sense of friction here. +1 to no more massive scav groups.
And at least in so far as scav runs, etc. I think it would be better (as compared to other ideas that suggest giving each clan something the other needs - it's more cooperation incentive, really) if all clans could reasonably expect to be self sufficient in terms of their scav needs.
Naturally, I have no idea how this or the ideas you've already decided to put into place would effect the game economy. Something to be wary of though.
On a more positive note, while I'm in no position to offer any meaningful and specific advice, I do think that you could encourage more inter-clan conflict by (as others have touched upon) creating more of a zero sum game when it comes to resources. And by resources, I mean things that are actually important, as compared to the bounty of the Bottomless Pit of Stuff. Power, food, water - if these things were genuinely scarcer, and finite, you could possibly come up with some way for clans to compete for these.
Land is another resource that's finite by definition. If you can think of some way (for all I know, you already have) to have clans compete for land (and the people that live on it) which translates to more access to other essential resources, you'll find clans with more incentive to compete rather than cooperate.
Finally, regardless of any and all solutions you might put into the game at this point, it's plain that there is already a strongly cooperative culture - there's already an IC history of cooperation and the friendships and understandings that come from that. If you want to move past that, you might have to involve some active admin plotmaking via NPCs and vNPCs to reignite the conflict amongst clans, even if your long term low-level conflict generation mechanisms are meant to be game design driven and not admin plot driven.
| grandpa wrote: |
| Why does this matter? Because it's how I play, and I feel it's how a lot of people play. Backgrounds and documentation are secondary to what happens IG. People are trying, and I respect both Rivean/Bartleby's points, but -until- there's something beyond backgrounds to have a sensible conflict over, it just boils down to "he upset me," which doesn't fuel any interest for me. |
I <3 my backgrounds. But though I agree with you on the idea that PCs often flesh out as they go (sometimes quite differently from what one originally conceived), I simply cannot disagree more with the idea that backgrounds (PC backgrounds and game documentation) are not sufficient basis for conflict. I disagree so vehemently in fact, that I can't help but feel I must have drastically misunderstood you.
Conflict (and specifically that nice low-level, non-murderous variety of it) can so easily be generated by even the most quotidian of prejudices. Or even, lets remove the negative connotation, by BELIEFS. What my character believes, how my character views himself, views you, views the world at large, views his place in it, are all the very BEST sources of conflict. This is true even for the real world. In a fantasy/sci-fi setting, where the world is designed with many pre-existing conflicts inherently worked into the social fabric, I find it surprising that you find your character's world view insufficient fuel for the fire.
| Bartleby wrote: |
| I don't really accept the logic of any argument based on the premise that most people just suck too much to make it work. I don't think it's lack of ability that holds people back, I think it's the value system they're working with. They put effort into what they value, and slack on what they don't value. |
While I don't share your faith in the potential trapped in each human being, I don't think that debate is of particular use to anybody. I will concede, however, that collectively deciding on a thing is very different from how well or poorly people manage to execute it. And perhaps collectively deciding on this is good enough for your (our) purposes. And certainly, small numbers of people have managed to leave a significant impression on the IG fabric of SoI before, as I've personally experienced. It can be done. Cultures can be changed.
But 'has happened before' and 'likely to happen again' are two different things as well, and these events/times I refer to are black swans - inspiring for their success, but also somewhat misleading because they are infinitely more visible than all the many other attempts that failed, despite equally talented players investing equal amounts of time and energy.
(That said, if you get enough like minded people, you may find that you've managed to turn the game around for yourself, if not for everyone)
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
