More Mu* Ramblings
Mar. 22nd, 2006 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
orikesWow. The previous entry is probably the most responded to thing I’ve ever written on Livejournal. I’m rather impressed with and appreciative of the response I got. It’s nice to write something and then get some real meat in resturn.
The responses have got me thinking that the issue I need to be thinking about is less about how to handle villains, and more about how to handle characters in general. The setting is a main indicator of the expectations that people will have for the way conflict is handled on the game, and also a guideline of what might work, or not work for a game.
If I were to create a superhero game, I would most likely follow in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
7th_son’s footsteps and make the antagonists be NPCs. Of course, if I were to create a superhero game I would think about it for all of two seconds, laugh at myself and then go sign myself up to staff at Worlds of Wonder.
The game I am leaning towards is more a modern gothic game. Some might consider it a bastard child of World of Darkness and the crop of current authors writing in the arena: Jim Butcher, Laurell K. Hamilton, Kim Harrison, Kelly Armstrong, and so on. That’s quite a few parents for my mutant baby, but while there are things I like about each of those settings, there are issues with putting them into a MU* setting (not to mention copyright issues). Admittedly, there’s a Dresden Files MU* in the works created under heavy influence from Jim Butcher himself (who happens to be a MU*er), so that particular setting may fly better than others.
One thing I started thinking seriously about was the games I’ve played on and what worked and what didn’t. We learn from experience, after all. I’ve been MU*ing since 1994 at this point, so I’ve seen some of the good and some of the bad.
Even as popular as it still is, I have too much against World of Darkness to consider it a good MU* setting. Perhaps it’s the attitudes of the players that tend to inhabit those games, but I feel that the setting ends up being too strict for a MU* setting. Too often characters are forced into stereotypes that leave little room for real development. It becomes an ‘us vs. them’ attitude that I just don’t like. In addition, I have no patience for the OOC Masq that many WoD games try to enforce. It’s either a wall made of tissue paper that everyone ignores, or it’s an iron curtain keeping people from getting to the interesting rp.
On Crucible City, there were strict rules about character morality. They could be dark heroes, but they still had to be heroes. No standing on the sidelines when innocents were being hurt. This made absolute sense for the theme and genre of that game, but I do think that there were moments were things got boring or soap opera-esque because of that setup. But as7th_son has already said, that’s more the fault of the way the players used the system than the system itself.
City by the Bay seems to suffer from no one wanting to be the bad guy. Even though people play for their character’s interests, or their own faction’s interests, any sort of conflict that occurred between characters or groups often ended up with people either throwing their IC weight around or claiming how they were the ones being wronged on an OOC level. Very few seemed willing to be firmly in that shade of gray to cause some dynamic conflict. There was potential there, but players would get indignant if someone were to take umbrage with how they were doing something IC. Perhaps it was because most people seemed more interested in telling their personal stories rather than the game’s stories.
Aether saw some of that, but it was to a lesser extent, I believe. Of all the games I’ve played, Aether is probably the closest to what I would want to achieve. It wasn’t perfect, but there were moments of pure beauty when mature players would get their characters into interesting conflicts that had no true villain or hero. Some players often needed to be reminded that character morality and values are not the same as the morality and value of the players, but when the players were solid, there was some good stuff there.
The best example of this I can think of may have to be Tiberius. On the surface, he was the alcoholic black sheep cousin of one of the premier families in the Empyre. Hidden beneath that, he was a shrewd, intelligent, and deviously clever man who was capable of manipulating situations into where he needed them to be. Thinking back, I can’t remember if he actually worked in the service of the Empyror or Cassius or some other nebulous group. He was subtle and wonderful. Of course, the player just kicked ass anyway. (Hiporphyrin)
That’s the type of thing I’d want to encourage to grow on any game I got involved in. Now the trick is, how to make it happen.
The responses have got me thinking that the issue I need to be thinking about is less about how to handle villains, and more about how to handle characters in general. The setting is a main indicator of the expectations that people will have for the way conflict is handled on the game, and also a guideline of what might work, or not work for a game.
If I were to create a superhero game, I would most likely follow in
7th_son’s footsteps and make the antagonists be NPCs. Of course, if I were to create a superhero game I would think about it for all of two seconds, laugh at myself and then go sign myself up to staff at Worlds of Wonder. The game I am leaning towards is more a modern gothic game. Some might consider it a bastard child of World of Darkness and the crop of current authors writing in the arena: Jim Butcher, Laurell K. Hamilton, Kim Harrison, Kelly Armstrong, and so on. That’s quite a few parents for my mutant baby, but while there are things I like about each of those settings, there are issues with putting them into a MU* setting (not to mention copyright issues). Admittedly, there’s a Dresden Files MU* in the works created under heavy influence from Jim Butcher himself (who happens to be a MU*er), so that particular setting may fly better than others.
One thing I started thinking seriously about was the games I’ve played on and what worked and what didn’t. We learn from experience, after all. I’ve been MU*ing since 1994 at this point, so I’ve seen some of the good and some of the bad.
Even as popular as it still is, I have too much against World of Darkness to consider it a good MU* setting. Perhaps it’s the attitudes of the players that tend to inhabit those games, but I feel that the setting ends up being too strict for a MU* setting. Too often characters are forced into stereotypes that leave little room for real development. It becomes an ‘us vs. them’ attitude that I just don’t like. In addition, I have no patience for the OOC Masq that many WoD games try to enforce. It’s either a wall made of tissue paper that everyone ignores, or it’s an iron curtain keeping people from getting to the interesting rp.
On Crucible City, there were strict rules about character morality. They could be dark heroes, but they still had to be heroes. No standing on the sidelines when innocents were being hurt. This made absolute sense for the theme and genre of that game, but I do think that there were moments were things got boring or soap opera-esque because of that setup. But as
7th_son has already said, that’s more the fault of the way the players used the system than the system itself. City by the Bay seems to suffer from no one wanting to be the bad guy. Even though people play for their character’s interests, or their own faction’s interests, any sort of conflict that occurred between characters or groups often ended up with people either throwing their IC weight around or claiming how they were the ones being wronged on an OOC level. Very few seemed willing to be firmly in that shade of gray to cause some dynamic conflict. There was potential there, but players would get indignant if someone were to take umbrage with how they were doing something IC. Perhaps it was because most people seemed more interested in telling their personal stories rather than the game’s stories.
Aether saw some of that, but it was to a lesser extent, I believe. Of all the games I’ve played, Aether is probably the closest to what I would want to achieve. It wasn’t perfect, but there were moments of pure beauty when mature players would get their characters into interesting conflicts that had no true villain or hero. Some players often needed to be reminded that character morality and values are not the same as the morality and value of the players, but when the players were solid, there was some good stuff there.
The best example of this I can think of may have to be Tiberius. On the surface, he was the alcoholic black sheep cousin of one of the premier families in the Empyre. Hidden beneath that, he was a shrewd, intelligent, and deviously clever man who was capable of manipulating situations into where he needed them to be. Thinking back, I can’t remember if he actually worked in the service of the Empyror or Cassius or some other nebulous group. He was subtle and wonderful. Of course, the player just kicked ass anyway. (Hi
porphyrin)That’s the type of thing I’d want to encourage to grow on any game I got involved in. Now the trick is, how to make it happen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 08:52 am (UTC)I'm going to theorize briefly why Aether worked.
* You were automatically part of a strong culture. You could belong to two or, in rare cases, three, but you were automatically part of one. This means you started out with instant allies from everyone else who created someone in that culture. You might become enemies later, but that's RP.
* The cultures were simple to grasp. Sure, they eventually ended up somewhat complex, but the Aether races were mythic templates and the cultures nationalistic or practical. (Maybe this is why the Sylvans never did well.) The cultures were also all enemies of one another. The truces between them were uneasy and deeply political.
* Players could make a difference in the entire game world. Moreover, the game world itself wasn't so complex that this was a burden. Part of this was because the setting was the core diplomatic center of the known world (Haven), part of this was because staff cared enough to follow through with the actions and echo them back to the players. Much like Babylon 5 or Sigil, or other major multi-faction nexus point.
So, concequences were quick but often non-lethal, you knew where you stood with your culture when you got on the game, and you could make a difference in the game. To me, I always felt like I was part of a larger world, but at the hub of it.
---
I'm not sure how that'll help, but if it does, congrats.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 02:05 pm (UTC)Yes, easy-to-grasp cultures are key -- it lowers the learning curve well. In my case I hope to start a game with a VERY low learning curve, so we plan to have everyone start out human and eventually they can gravitate into a faction (if they want, it'd be optional)... still working that out though.
Instant allies via faction can also help get you OOCly introduced to other active RPers. It doesn't always work so conveniently, though, especially if established groups on the game tend to keep to themselves; it can backfire when someone joins a less-populated faction or a faction mostly populated by insular RPers. Sure, there are other players on the game, but they may be highly inaccessible to newbies due to faction divisions and geographic distance. Again, having a big playerbase would help immeasurably with that aspect.
Here's a thought that could apply to pretty much any game. I plan to put a lot more effort than ever before into introducing new players OOCly to others whose characters might have something in common, and encourage existing players to do the same. Getting newbies hooked up right away with people OOC will help them feel like they have someone to page and someone to talk to when they log in... someone to look for that they'd look forward to seeing. That said, of course I don't want to pressure people with my wiz status into feeling obliged to RP with said newbie. Maybe handle it over a chat channel instead, something like that...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 06:40 pm (UTC)Ultimately, I think the key is having staff and certain players all on relatively the same page about what to create for the world as a whole.
There were issues with Aether, but for the most part, it worked well for a good chunk of time.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 01:56 pm (UTC)From everything I've heard though, it really was a great game with excellent administration and just generally marvy. So, it sounds like a great thing to emulate, philosophically.
I've been taking a strong interest in your MU* threads since I'm also thinking of firing up a game. I really miss RP and although it sounds like the available playerbase is thinner these days, I somehow have faith it could work.
Agreed RE: forcing characters into stereotypes -- that's why I gave up pretty early on on the idea of enforcing IC racism between the different races of characters. People could use the concept to RP if they wanted to, for tension... and other folks could just as easily ignore it.
On a related note, I do sometimes wonder if the stricter, stronger race divisions on Aether were a good thing; but, if you have a large enough playerbase to support it, then it shouldn't matter that folks are sliced into multiple core groups. I was only there a few months, so I can't say for sure how it worked in practice there... but my point is it could turn out that way on any game.
RE: your last paragraph, the easiest way to make it happen is,
1) build a game that's friendly to such deep, complex characters.
2) perpetuate by example. Start off straightaway with a few strong players who share that approach to RP, so you can establish the game's culture well from the beginning. I believe that really trickles down in the long term, setting the expectations with newbies and it passes onward.
#2 is more for when you're ready to open (even in a beta stage), so focusing on #1 is the part under your control right now. I'd wager that #1 is mainly a question of setting up how divided you do or don't want your various in-game groups to be... trying to find the right level of tension without making them hopelessly non-interactable.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 06:42 pm (UTC)Hrm.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 08:14 pm (UTC)Not that I think trying to establish a norm is a bad thing for a game; it can add flavor whenever it works out.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 08:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-23 11:12 pm (UTC)And now for the shallow part of this, if indeed,
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-24 12:03 am (UTC)Atalanta worked because she was a representative of what the norm should be when too many people didn't want to play that. Too many wanted to play the nice happy liberal Empys and ignore the superior attitudes that the race as a whole had in the cultural identity.
That's one of the things that gets me about some games. Someone plays a 'realistic' character who does not have liberal beliefs, and suddenly everyone gets out the tars and feathers... proving themselves to be as small minded as the person they're trying to show up.