|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:39 am |  |
| WorkerDrone wrote: |
| Characters don't necessarily state their intended goals even in private in regards to what their idealization is, whatever those idealizations are, and that's likely why they get along. |
That's always one of the trickiest parts, isn't it? How to let enough of your inner concept show through to keep things interesting (and provide those gentle points of friction/curiosity/opportunity with other PCs), but not so much as to ruin all your character's plots & relationships, get them kicked out of their clan, or make them into an annoying life-story vending machine. Or just, you know, not so much that you run out of material prematurely. 
| WorkerDrone wrote: |
| Another reason why characters might get along, even if state intentions/goals for similar focal concept points are too different, is that neither of you can get there without each other--or abandoning each other before the end goal sets a bad precedent for others. |
And this was my impression of the ideal for Rust, as an RP environment. Characters (on a micro level) and Families (on a macro one) whose ideals/personalities/ultimate goals/etc. ought to be incompatible, but who find themselves forced by harsh circumstance to make things work together, generating a more-or-less steady stream of low-level, sustainable conflict/fun, with or without the occasional flare-up into more dramatic, if less sustainable, territory.
Is it wildly different from your experience of the gameworld? If so, why?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:05 am | |
| eltanimras wrote: |
| WorkerDrone wrote: |
| Another reason why characters might get along, even if state intentions/goals for similar focal concept points are too different, is that neither of you can get there without each other--or abandoning each other before the end goal sets a bad precedent for others. |
And this was my impression of the ideal for Rust, as an RP environment. Characters (on a micro level) and Families (on a macro one) whose ideals/personalities/ultimate goals/etc. ought to be incompatible, but who find themselves forced by harsh circumstance to make things work together, generating a more-or-less steady stream of low-level, sustainable conflict/fun, with or without the occasional flare-up into more dramatic, if less sustainable, territory.
Is it wildly different from your experience of the gameworld? If so, why? |
In my experience, the game was a LOT more like that toward the beginning. If you ran into the scav run of another Family out in the wastes, you were cautious, suspicious. Wary. Now there is more or less only one, inter-Family, run at a time. Not that I'm blaming the current scav methodology -- I actually think that that itself is a symptom of the conflict-averse way things are.
And honestly I think the clan leads kind of set the example for this, if they aren't wary of each other or scheming behind each other's backs (with the knowledge of at least some of their own clan), it's one big happy family which underlings are unlikely to take it upon themselves to try and upset, especially if it might harm their chances for advancement within their own Family.
There is plenty of potentially friction-generating canon but most of it is glossed, in my experience, in favor of getting along. In fact, many times I've seen people advised to let go of past aggression and slights (from verbal disrespect to murder) rather than make any sort of issue out of it. It's perfectly IC to want to avoid a war, but go too far in that direction and it's Sesame Street, which is sort of where we're at now. I personally have found it very difficult to hold onto traditional (pre-game) attitudes amid a sea of people explaining patiently how "undiplomatic" that is.
Yes, it is totally possible to be the guy who invented diplomacy since that isn't the core value by which Rust is supposed to have been operating, but what is the benefit of doing that right away, without any kind of struggle or process? Doesn't it just sidestep the conflict the game was set up to generate? 
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:47 am | |
| Bartleby wrote: |
| There is plenty of potentially friction-generating canon but most of it is glossed, in my experience, in favor of getting along. In fact, many times I've seen people advised to let go of past aggression and slights (from verbal disrespect to murder) rather than make any sort of issue out of it. It's perfectly IC to want to avoid a war, but go too far in that direction and it's Sesame Street, which is sort of where we're at now. I personally have found it very difficult to hold onto traditional (pre-game) attitudes amid a sea of people explaining patiently how "undiplomatic" that is. |
From what you're saying here, it seems to all be a matter of having a higher ratio of abrasive/conflict orientated characters to more peaceful sorts. So why DON'T you have a higher ratio? Why haven't more people rolled up more conflict oriented characters? Or have they been rolling up and, for whatever reason, been shut down?
| Bartleby wrote: |
| And honestly I think the clan leads kind of set the example for this, if they aren't wary of each other or scheming behind each other's backs (with the knowledge of at least some of their own clan), it's one big happy family which underlings are unlikely to take it upon themselves to try and upset, especially if it might harm their chances for advancement within their own Family. |
From what I've read of the thread (and I've read all of it - my wife has been gently nudging me to make some sort of post for a while now. She seems to think that I might have something of relevance to say. Girls and their silly ideas), it seems that the fundamental problem lies in game design at its root:
Regardless of what canon says, the clan leads have no actual IG reason to be at each other's throats, in fact, it is in their best interests to cooperate, and that's exactly what's been going on (from what I read, anyway). And if SoI has taught us any lessons, it's that 'I wrote it in the docs' is not a valid reason for a reality to exist in game. In order for it to exist in game, it needs to be supported by game design that reflects that reality. You can't set it up in such a way as to make X more beneficial/natural than Y, but expect Y to be the prevalent choice - it just doesn't work that way.
That all having been said, we're not talking about the mud as a whole, on this issue, we're talking about, as far as I can tell, three people. Because really, socioeconomic forces are powerful and all - but only when applied to large masses of people. They're worth shit all when considering the choices of individuals. And these three individuals can consciously choose to choose X instead of Y. And I'd be very disappointed indeed to find that they couldn't do so without it making IG, IC sense too.
So what about it guys? Why aren't your relationships, and consequently those your clans, more antagonistic?
One of the answers one might expect to hear to that (and it's come up before the thread) is that conflict of the inter-clan sort leads to violence and PK (am I really reading this on an atonement derivative mud?  ) which is hellish and nobody enjoys.
Which I'll very sadly agree with - the sad truth is that most people, by definition, on average, tend to be mediocre. So too for mud players, with reference to their ability to introduce nuance and subtlety into their roleplay. Too many characters come with only two settings: 'Buddies' and 'I'mma shoot yo ass'. Also, 'I'mma try and get your pants off' is an added bonus.
Sustainable conflict is hard because most people aren't good at the low-level friction it calls for - and I don't really blame them. There are often good IC reasons to escalate conflict beyond low-level, sustainable friction. This is why there needs to be some overriding socioeconomic force (game design once again) that makes fatal levels of violence an extremely undesirable thing.
My completely uninformed, and likely completely irrelevant two cents.
- The forum blight formerly known as Rivean.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:00 am | |
| Moriarty wrote: |
| From what you're saying here, it seems to all be a matter of having a higher ratio of abrasive/conflict orientated characters to more peaceful sorts. |
Not at all what I'm saying, no.
When two neighbors have been at war, or periodically go to war, a lot of hard feelings build up on both sides. Team A bombs the shit out of Team B for what it thinks are totally legitimate reasons (often a pre-emptive strike); Team B takes it very personally and feels the attack was unprovoked (therefore legitimizing a horrific retaliatory strike); Team A is devastated and feels victimized (often in danger of extermination), prompting the need for an even more dramatic reply. Do that for 10 or 40 or 70 years and each successive generation feels like the victim of the previous generation's grudges, always terrified that any concession to peace or diplomacy would mean failing to achieve justice for past wrongs, or submission to a conqueror, loss of self, annihilation.
There are countless real world examples (Israel and Palestine, the Balkans, India and Pakistan, etc, etc).
This does not require that either group be characterized by a preponderance of aggressive of conflict-oriented persons. In fact, one of the interesting things about it is the way it impacts the lives of people who would prefer to live in peace, how it draws them into violence they wouldn't ordinarily choose, either as a victim or victimizer.
The conflict isn't propelled onward because some people just want to fight someone, anyone. It's propelled onward because everyone feels like a victim, everyone feels themselves to be in mortal danger from an alien, dehumanized enemy.
| Moriarty wrote: |
| Regardless of what canon says, the clan leads have no actual IG reason to be at each other's throats, in fact, it is in their best interests to cooperate, and that's exactly what's been going on (from what I read, anyway). |
I think you're oversimplifying. As someone else said (can't remember who now, sorry), there's a vast gulf between "at each other's throats" and "cooperating swimmingly with no suspicion at all." It's actually possible to cooperate with someone you dislike and distrust. The attempt to reconcile two seemingly incompatible drives is what would make it interesting.
Always touchy, always on edge, but needing, really needing this precarious truce to hold. Don't mention the winter of '88 to Joe, no matter what you do! That itchy grenade finger of his is bound to blow this whole thing wide open.
| Moriarty wrote: |
| In order for it to exist in game, it needs to be supported by game design that reflects that reality. You can't set it up in such a way as to make X more beneficial/natural than Y, but expect Y to be the prevalent choice - it just doesn't work that way. |
Yes, obviously people aren't going to do things that offer 0 reward. But code goodies aren't the only type of reward. It's just a matter of what value is placed on which type of reward. I realize it's a lost cause to try and get everyone to care more about the depth of the story that's being told than they care about how leet their gear is, but that's certainly how I feel about it, and I'm not the only person who feels that way.
| Moriarty wrote: |
| And these three individuals can consciously choose to choose X instead of Y. And I'd be very disappointed indeed to find that they couldn't do so without it making IG, IC sense too. |
They can. Although where we're at right now, if only one leader tried to pull away, or take issue with something, the other two singling him out as insufficiently interested in playing nicely would create the social pressure necessary to bring him back into the fold, unfortunately.
And there's a difference between code sense and IC sense. Yes, how many gatos you can codedly round up and how much stuff you can codedly scav all reflects a certain "IC" reality, but there's a great deal of the game universe that isn't reflected in Stuff. To a certain extent, the admins laid out a certain path and continue to do so with plot nudging and so forth, but it's ultimately up to us, the players, to flesh it out and bring it to life. Or we could just mindlessly move through the world interacting with the code, going, "How come you can't code an infinitely deep and thrilling universe one craft at a time?"
Perhaps there are code solutions that would change the socioeconomic landscape but the admins are just people, like the players are, and from a pragmatic standpoint alone I think, why wait for 5 people to solve a million problems, some of them rather gargantuan, for you, when 60 of us could get together and roll up our own sleeves a bit?
What I learned, personally, from SOI is that it's perfectly possible to entertain oneself and others with no coded benefit. That, and if several people get together and decide to collaboratively deepen the narrative and enrich the landscape, it's a beautiful thing that people get sucked into and learn how to participate in. Hint.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:50 am | |
| Bartleby wrote: |
This does not require that either group be characterized by a preponderance of aggressive of conflict-oriented persons. In fact, one of the interesting things about it is the way it impacts the lives of people who would prefer to live in peace, how it draws them into violence they wouldn't ordinarily choose, either as a victim or victimizer.
The conflict isn't propelled onward because some people just want to fight someone, anyone. It's propelled onward because everyone feels like a victim, everyone feels themselves to be in mortal danger from an alien, dehumanized enemy. |
We're not disagreeing. When I said conflict oriented PCs, and more of them, I wasn't referring to angry people itching for a fight because that's how they roll. 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.
| Bartleby wrote: |
| Yes, obviously people aren't going to do things that offer 0 reward. But code goodies aren't the only type of reward. It's just a matter of what value is placed on which type of reward. I realize it's a lost cause to try and get everyone to care more about the depth of the story that's being told than they care about how leet their gear is, but that's certainly how I feel about it, and I'm not the only person who feels that way. |
Once again, we're not disagreeing. This wasn't ever the main thrust of my post. That said, the code does not seem to be agreeing with the desired outcome, and that IS a game design issue, and that DOES need to be addressed, by somebody, somewhere, even if there are other (better, more immediate, more effective) ways to address the problems. Which, again, coming back to the clan leads, that, I think, is where the solutions must lie - and once again, I don't think you and I are disagreeing.
(Have you perchance taken my preambles to heart?)
| Bartleby wrote: |
| Perhaps there are code solutions that would change the socioeconomic landscape but the admins are just people, like the players are, and from a pragmatic standpoint alone I think, why wait for 5 people to solve a million problems, some of them rather gargantuan, for you, when 60 of us could get together and roll up our own sleeves a bit? |
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.
| Bartleby wrote: |
| What I learned, personally, from SOI is that... |
Do we know each other?
| Bartleby wrote: |
| ...it's perfectly possible to entertain oneself and others with no coded benefit. That, and if several people get together and decide to collaboratively deepen the narrative and enrich the landscape, it's a beautiful thing that people get sucked into and learn how to participate in. Hint. |
If I didn't know better, sir, I'd say you were propositioning me. I'm a married man, you know.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:32 pm | |
+1 to this discussion.
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.
That's what's on our plate. What else might help?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:16 pm | |
I personally find it pretty dang hard to do anything to create friction. But, I'm not sure it's because I can't and instead because I can't bring myself to do it and enjoy it.
I honestly think it might be a habit I developed from playing casual online games for most of my life where people literally go out of their way to eff your day up. Even on games where rp was encouraged, there were still a large number of people out to kill you just because you don't belong to their clan. I always found myself hating that and speaking out against it constantly, and I think maybe I can't let go of that mentality.
I just wonder if this might explain some behavior for anyone else.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:02 pm | |
You have to account for game realities in design, even if documents say something else entirely, as mentioned here before. If you want a game that has low-level tension, there has to be something to fight for - something greater than the individual. ARPI BETA did this poorly, at least in the beginning where I can speak for it. New Phoenix were supposed to be the antagonists, yet the game reality was just that New Phoenix was non-existent. Players couldn't interact with New Phoenix outside of admin interaction. There were no NP outposts to capture, no merchants/guards in town to bring home the reality of NP domination, nothing.
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. If I was Sergeant Bob, leader of the New Guard, what's the point of voicing my suspicion about Crazy Jack, leader of the Niners, if there's nothing worth stirring the hornet's nest over? You'd be fighting over nothing, which isn't worth it for anybody.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:17 pm | |
| 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. If I was Sergeant Bob, leader of the New Guard, what's the point of voicing my suspicion about Crazy Jack, leader of the Niners, if there's nothing worth stirring the hornet's nest over? You'd be fighting over nothing, which isn't worth it for anybody. |
When I make a PC, I write four-five paragraphs. It barely fills a screen when I type jread 1. Background is minimalistic. It exists, it has a theme, but it's there to be filled in by things that pop up during play.
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.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:20 pm | |
So, what would something beyond a background to have a sensible conflict over be?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
