(MUCK) Status in Question
Furryfaire in flux once more. As laid out over in Tashiro's journal, management and the future of the MUCK are sort of up in the air right now. It's a rough situation all around, and this will probably get long...
Personal rant first, I guess...
I feel responsible. And I feel bad about that. But also, I feel offended at feeling responsible. I don't really think I should be the single lynch pin that keeps the head wiz logging in. There should be other people to interact with and other things to do. That's sort of the point of a MUCK. If you just want to talk to one person, that's more the realm of IMs or something. So it really should not be the fault of my own waning interest that someone else bows out. I could certainly point to all the other contributing factors - plenty of inactive players, staff that didn't fill their roles, etc.
Yet I still feel guilty about it. And I think that gets close to the reason I don't like being fully relied upon. I utter despise being the single point of failure. It makes me feel obligated to keep doing things. That, in turn, makes me resent what comes to feel like a chore. It's a good way to sap enjoyment out of something that probably stated as fun or at least "a good idea." There probably should be some psychological positive to being critical. Everyone wants to belong, right? But while I find enjoyment in being involved, if I end up in the position of being necessary, that usually fades. That seems to apply to games, relationships, jobs - you name it.
/rant
So... Furryfaire...
System, setting, and everything are up for discussion, it seems. I wish that were a better situation. I think revamping an existing MUCK has got to be harder than starting one from scratch because you have everyone's expectations to wade through. And it's pretty much impossible to get a good read on what everyone wants. No matter how you poll people, you get a very small percentage of response. Some people just aren't around for it, others miss forum or board posts, many will miss announcements or live discussions... Ugh. I have a perception of what the player base thinks, but I freely acknowledge it's really only based on a small sample size and could be way off.
Hmmf. I don't even know where to begin, there's so much.
It was asked "how do we prevent players from superseding limits in the system?" When I responded that you build the system to disallow it, I was told (by the same person no less) that we can't do that. Apparently, overcoming "limits" by magic or whatever has to be allowed. Well... okay... then why ask the question in the first place if you've already answered it with "you can't?" That's frustrating to me. If you're making a fundamental design choice to allow characters to overcome any "maximums," then you really need to acknowledge that's what you're doing and place less emphasis on those so-called limits.
Personally, I think that's bad for Furryfaire. Saying so is not a knock against those formative games of old where you played a character through godhood and beyond. With a handful of players and a dedicated GM, I think that type of game can play out fine. On a MUCK where one of your other stated goals is to make plots playable by high and low characters side-by-side, I think that's ridiculous. Either you make hard limits to what the characters can do, or you don't and then you deal with the radical imbalance between characters later.
-
I've seen some pitch talk about at least one system, but that feels premature to me when we haven't even settled on setting. It's certainly cleaner to make sure your system does what you want people to be able to do before the fact rather than trying to shoe-horn things in later.
There also seems to be some basic disagreement on what's "simple" enough. Players need to have some understanding of what their character growth choices will do for them and what the numbers on their sheets mean. But they don't necessarily need to know every calculation involved - at least to my thinking. A very small percentage of people will sit down and really look at what can be done with the system. Others will ask for help if things aren't blatantly obvious. Making things as clear as possible to avoid the latter would probably benefit things in the long run.
-
And no one seems quite sure what to do with the setting. I think I've heard three or four people voice opinions since last night. All of them have had a different vision. Before, we were discussing moving to steampunk. Someone mentioned modern. I think that really needs to be figured out before people get moving on details of how to make it happen.
Personally, I'm a bit short on preference. I sort of cling to the old "100% furry fantasy" tagline, but we've skirted that for years with non-furries and increasing elements of what most people wouldn't consider fantasy.
Whatever is decided, the expectation needs to be clear. Right now, people connect and see that line and (at least, I think) have certain pre-conceived notions. When most people see a fantasy game, I think they expect to be able to make a knight who protects the land against enemies or monsters, or make a mercenary who fights for money... whatever. But the social climate of the MUCK has long been such that those things don't really exist. The center of play was dropped into a developed nation/city with some pretty solid laws and enforcement. There were very few threats to the land, and they were almost all big "OMG, the world is going to end if you don't save it!" plotlines that probably go too far.
So in general, I think I agree with those who have said Furryfaire was/became too civilized a setting. There's really little or no room for the adventure that you expect in a "fantasy" setting. I don't necessarily think a more social and civilized setting is bad, but it does everyone a disservice when the expectation is for something else entirely.
-
Also, a big deal was made about how social conflict just has to be included and "not second fiddle" to combat. Frankly, it feels like that point is being pushed primarily to cater to one specific player. I've spoken on social combat in RPGs before, and expressed my opinions there. They are only opinions, of course, and we'll differ on that. But what bugged me even more about social combat specifically on Furryfaire went beyond that.
The setting was such that if someone tried to resolve an issue by force of arms, a few things happened. First, the aggressor puts himself on the line. Death and injury are both possible, but once you attack someone, you're risking death. On top of that, the odds are high that even if you win, you'll be arrested. So not only do you risk losing your character by failing in the direct conflict, you have to deal with fallout that could cost your character by way of incarceration, exile, or (theoretically) execution.
On the other hand, if you go after someone socially, you can screw them over just as much by getting them killed/exiled (or worse, in my opinion, converted), but the odds are slim you'll get more than a dirty look if you fail. And if you succeed, probably not even that. Only in the rarest of cases was there any risk to this form of assault. That didn't make it "as good as" physical combat, it make it better to the point of being silly.
Tangent: Supernatural attacks were somewhere in the middle, being less obvious than physical attacks, but more punishable than social ones.
In a tabletop game, that sort of setup is almost inconceivable. Usually you meet your opposition once, conflict, and it's over. In that sort of situation, a punch to the face outweighs vicious rumors. But in a MUCK, the social aspect is augmented by the continuing characters and storylines, plus there's something of an OOC taboo against killing characters that goes further than anything done socially.
So, personally, I want to see the outcome of social combat either tuned way down or the consequences tuned way up. And I don't see how you would accomplish the latter. Maybe a society where it's okay to punch someone in the face for trying to convince you their way is right or for talking bad about you? The mental imagery makes me chuckle.
-
Overall, I don't know. I don't have any solid solutions. What I would do with the place (not that I have the drive) conflicts with others' opinions. We need to settle on a setting/type of game and build from there, I think. But more than anything, I just want those making the decisions to understand what it is they are deciding. I'm seeing too many design goals that are contradictory so far.
Personal rant first, I guess...
I feel responsible. And I feel bad about that. But also, I feel offended at feeling responsible. I don't really think I should be the single lynch pin that keeps the head wiz logging in. There should be other people to interact with and other things to do. That's sort of the point of a MUCK. If you just want to talk to one person, that's more the realm of IMs or something. So it really should not be the fault of my own waning interest that someone else bows out. I could certainly point to all the other contributing factors - plenty of inactive players, staff that didn't fill their roles, etc.
Yet I still feel guilty about it. And I think that gets close to the reason I don't like being fully relied upon. I utter despise being the single point of failure. It makes me feel obligated to keep doing things. That, in turn, makes me resent what comes to feel like a chore. It's a good way to sap enjoyment out of something that probably stated as fun or at least "a good idea." There probably should be some psychological positive to being critical. Everyone wants to belong, right? But while I find enjoyment in being involved, if I end up in the position of being necessary, that usually fades. That seems to apply to games, relationships, jobs - you name it.
/rant
So... Furryfaire...
System, setting, and everything are up for discussion, it seems. I wish that were a better situation. I think revamping an existing MUCK has got to be harder than starting one from scratch because you have everyone's expectations to wade through. And it's pretty much impossible to get a good read on what everyone wants. No matter how you poll people, you get a very small percentage of response. Some people just aren't around for it, others miss forum or board posts, many will miss announcements or live discussions... Ugh. I have a perception of what the player base thinks, but I freely acknowledge it's really only based on a small sample size and could be way off.
Hmmf. I don't even know where to begin, there's so much.
It was asked "how do we prevent players from superseding limits in the system?" When I responded that you build the system to disallow it, I was told (by the same person no less) that we can't do that. Apparently, overcoming "limits" by magic or whatever has to be allowed. Well... okay... then why ask the question in the first place if you've already answered it with "you can't?" That's frustrating to me. If you're making a fundamental design choice to allow characters to overcome any "maximums," then you really need to acknowledge that's what you're doing and place less emphasis on those so-called limits.
Personally, I think that's bad for Furryfaire. Saying so is not a knock against those formative games of old where you played a character through godhood and beyond. With a handful of players and a dedicated GM, I think that type of game can play out fine. On a MUCK where one of your other stated goals is to make plots playable by high and low characters side-by-side, I think that's ridiculous. Either you make hard limits to what the characters can do, or you don't and then you deal with the radical imbalance between characters later.
-
I've seen some pitch talk about at least one system, but that feels premature to me when we haven't even settled on setting. It's certainly cleaner to make sure your system does what you want people to be able to do before the fact rather than trying to shoe-horn things in later.
There also seems to be some basic disagreement on what's "simple" enough. Players need to have some understanding of what their character growth choices will do for them and what the numbers on their sheets mean. But they don't necessarily need to know every calculation involved - at least to my thinking. A very small percentage of people will sit down and really look at what can be done with the system. Others will ask for help if things aren't blatantly obvious. Making things as clear as possible to avoid the latter would probably benefit things in the long run.
-
And no one seems quite sure what to do with the setting. I think I've heard three or four people voice opinions since last night. All of them have had a different vision. Before, we were discussing moving to steampunk. Someone mentioned modern. I think that really needs to be figured out before people get moving on details of how to make it happen.
Personally, I'm a bit short on preference. I sort of cling to the old "100% furry fantasy" tagline, but we've skirted that for years with non-furries and increasing elements of what most people wouldn't consider fantasy.
Whatever is decided, the expectation needs to be clear. Right now, people connect and see that line and (at least, I think) have certain pre-conceived notions. When most people see a fantasy game, I think they expect to be able to make a knight who protects the land against enemies or monsters, or make a mercenary who fights for money... whatever. But the social climate of the MUCK has long been such that those things don't really exist. The center of play was dropped into a developed nation/city with some pretty solid laws and enforcement. There were very few threats to the land, and they were almost all big "OMG, the world is going to end if you don't save it!" plotlines that probably go too far.
So in general, I think I agree with those who have said Furryfaire was/became too civilized a setting. There's really little or no room for the adventure that you expect in a "fantasy" setting. I don't necessarily think a more social and civilized setting is bad, but it does everyone a disservice when the expectation is for something else entirely.
-
Also, a big deal was made about how social conflict just has to be included and "not second fiddle" to combat. Frankly, it feels like that point is being pushed primarily to cater to one specific player. I've spoken on social combat in RPGs before, and expressed my opinions there. They are only opinions, of course, and we'll differ on that. But what bugged me even more about social combat specifically on Furryfaire went beyond that.
The setting was such that if someone tried to resolve an issue by force of arms, a few things happened. First, the aggressor puts himself on the line. Death and injury are both possible, but once you attack someone, you're risking death. On top of that, the odds are high that even if you win, you'll be arrested. So not only do you risk losing your character by failing in the direct conflict, you have to deal with fallout that could cost your character by way of incarceration, exile, or (theoretically) execution.
On the other hand, if you go after someone socially, you can screw them over just as much by getting them killed/exiled (or worse, in my opinion, converted), but the odds are slim you'll get more than a dirty look if you fail. And if you succeed, probably not even that. Only in the rarest of cases was there any risk to this form of assault. That didn't make it "as good as" physical combat, it make it better to the point of being silly.
Tangent: Supernatural attacks were somewhere in the middle, being less obvious than physical attacks, but more punishable than social ones.
In a tabletop game, that sort of setup is almost inconceivable. Usually you meet your opposition once, conflict, and it's over. In that sort of situation, a punch to the face outweighs vicious rumors. But in a MUCK, the social aspect is augmented by the continuing characters and storylines, plus there's something of an OOC taboo against killing characters that goes further than anything done socially.
So, personally, I want to see the outcome of social combat either tuned way down or the consequences tuned way up. And I don't see how you would accomplish the latter. Maybe a society where it's okay to punch someone in the face for trying to convince you their way is right or for talking bad about you? The mental imagery makes me chuckle.
-
Overall, I don't know. I don't have any solid solutions. What I would do with the place (not that I have the drive) conflicts with others' opinions. We need to settle on a setting/type of game and build from there, I think. But more than anything, I just want those making the decisions to understand what it is they are deciding. I'm seeing too many design goals that are contradictory so far.
Comments
Post a Comment