Ryzom

Being cold and logical .....

Which is better?

1. No build up.

You login an Sat morning, the MoD says ....

Go to Bounty beaches and kill a load of 'New' NPCs/Mobs, keep doing it the the 'Please wait' AI reset occurs and go back to grinding mobs on a spawn or digging mats.


OR

2. Build up

-Hints dropped in the forums and by announcements.
-Small groups huddled around a 'RP' guide drive char, who hints at trouble ahead.
-A day passes and no new, atmospehe builds, excitement (is it real or not?)
-Arguements 'Is something comming' vs 'Nothing new'

-Then it happens, mass rally of homins to the event site.

-Kill the NPCs

-Closure of story



Basically its like everything, the fun is not in the 'event' itself, its in the jounery to get there.

Without all the 'window dressing' we might as well not have the events.

I don't attend every event. The ones I have done I have had mixed feelings about, but they have all been fun. (this is down manily to my personal taste and the 'mood' I am in when playing)

I have enjoyed them all.

As for the story of Atys and the 'effect on the world', I hear these words often, but the history is what we have in our minds (our memories) and what has been written down.

It would be hard in a game to replicate 'true' long term effects.

Eg

Every Karavan support goes and attacks the kami.

Depending on the 'Rules' the kami can either be destroyed or not.

If the can't be destroyed, they will wipe out all the karavan supporters and the kavaran will be forced in to battle with the kami itself.

So net long term end result of 'real change'.

Everytime you log in, you will be killed instantly by either a kami or karavan.
you will spawn, if they let you.
You walk 100m and you will be killed again.

Eventually the war between Karavan and Kami ends.

Normality returns...

Till the player attack again.

In summary ... in real world gaming terms

You login - kill a NPC - for the next 3 week everytime you login you die instantly - if you remain subbed - you login 3 weeks later and someone else starts the war again.


If portals were destroyable, it wouldn't take long before we all became trapped.

If areas could be cleared of mobs, it wouldn't take long before all the mobs are dead!

...etc


So when you say 'Long term effect, changing world, etc'

What do you mean?

borg9 wrote:Being cold and logical .....

Which is better?

To which the answer is of course is mu.
Both have their places.

The first one is an instant and/or unknown development, for instance a band of thiefs decide to mug someone.
Small events (which can escalate in to a bigger one), or happenings, are good for many things, least of all to keep players on their toes.

Second one have someone planning something, often big, and word leaks out to the opposing force(s).
You can have long story arches which extends or introduces new elements about Atys, races, conflicts, information and characters, and thereby paint a bigger picture of the game world.
Further more is it less of a hit or miss on who 'wins', players might not succed in stopping all parts of the plan. But if they stop enough, the big plan is either stopped or hampered enough to slow down the enemy (which of course sets of its own potentially story arches ).

As a pen and paper GM (and player for that mater), I find that a mix of the two works the best.
The long story arch keep players interested over the long run.
And happenings goes to pick up interest when nothing big is around (or even hit at future events).
Or if you are evil, distract or confuse what is happening in the long story.