Ryzom

The clash OOC and OOG between different styles, ideals and goals is more acute than the one IN game and IC. I myself am beginning to loathe certain players with characters on both sides of the IC conflict for the way they conduct themselves in this event.

My participation, by the way, should not in any way be taken as an endorsement of this event. I am participating because I basically have no choice if I want to be a part of anything.

I'm going to attempt, hopefully, to explain how the playerbase appears to be so acrimoniously split and why some people are quitting. How this came about and, potentially, how it can be corrected. Some of this is going to get a little 'intellectual' I'm afraid, but stick with it and you may find it helps.

As you may or may not know I am a full time, freelance and self-publishing, RPG designer. That's pen and paper or TTRPGs, not computer games. This doesn't give me any special insight into computer games, but there are many broad similarities - particularly in CRPGs and MMORPGs especially. I say this not to crow or claim 'Authoratay' but just to give you a little background of where I'm coming from.

Amongst RPG writers there is a much talked about theory of game analysis/design called the GNS theory. A cut down version runs accordingly...

* Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people rather than the characters); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the player's actual play strategies.

* Simulationism Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration of the world as it exists as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration. (The exploration quoted is not exploration as in travelling but in discovering, fiddling with things and aiming for a plausible and consistent world/vision)

* Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Literary sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

Note, these terms do not explain everything, they merely provide a frame of reference for analysis and understanding.

Here I'm going to use it to try to explain different player types.

A gamist plays to 'win'. This needn't necessarily mean PvP but they will tend to play the system. Find combinations that work, discover 'exploits' that give a great deal of power, decode mathematical game systems to calculate the odds. Their 'character' is likely to just be a playing piece as much as anything with little to no more attachment than a chess piece. In game decisions that they make will be done with the goal of getting the greatest amount of power and advantage.
Example: They might have no qualms whatsoever abotu purchasing jewels from a rival faction because they know the seller there is better and makes great resistance jewels.

A narrativist places story and character above all else. They want to influence the way the story is moving and to feel a part of it. That they make a difference and can be a hero. Most, but not all of your roleplayers are going to fall into this. They'll be interested in the lore and portraying a role within the context of (or bucking against) that lore. In game decisions they make will (within the boundries of still being able to play reasonably effectively) be made for reasons of RP or aesthetic.
Example: They might wear a low quality low boost ring, simply because it has emotional significane to them or has been crafted by their in game spouse.

A simulationist is interested in the veracity and internal consistency of the gameworld. They want details, knowledge, understanding, to explore the systems of the world and to understand the simulated reality of it. They want things to hang together interestingly and to make sense. They're likely to get a kick out of crafting and the economic systems.
Example: They might wear all their own jewels, despite them being lower level as they're experimenting with what does what and they don't believe the prices the economy supports are realistic.

In the context of the current event, interpretations can be very different between the types (nothing is black and white of course, most players will have elements of appreciation and compromise between all three).

A gamist sees - a game only. They see the fight and war as being no more significant than a game of football. A bit of fun they can laugh about afterwards and still be mates with people on the opposing side. They'll be interested in the rewards for having lots of honour, in the PvP to test their 'optimal builds' and won't mind constantly being ganked so much because to them, it is 'only a game'

A narrativist sees - a war. Some will be pro, some will be anti, but this is a major event for their characters and for the world, changing the direction of the whole game and with lasting impact. Nothing will ever be the same again, not interaction, nothing at all. It all changes now and will have varying effects on varying characters.

A simulationist is likely interested in the building actions and the effect the event will have on a war economy but may share concerns with some narrativists that the sudden swing to war doesn't make much sense in the context of the gameworld as presented. They are probably also interested in emerging tactics and how large scale fights will go down.

Each can be for or against PvP, each can have different reactions and levels of interest (or rejection) to it but hopefully this should help people in each camp (recognised or not) understand each other a little better.

i think one of the problems is that many people don't fit easily into one of these categories. It's similar to the hardcore/casual gamer argument, at the extremes are people who will slot neatly in to a particular position, but there are many in the middle who display characteristics from one or more.

I'd put myself firmly in this fluctuating state. I enjoy staying in character to a point, and try not to act in a way that goes against my back story, but when i see a shiny sword up for sale in Matis then the gamer in me comes out and i have urges to buy it. Similar thing with the PvP going on it's not why i started playing, and for the last 12 months i have truly loved the PvE, loved living in Atys, almost another life. But as we reach conflict i find myself enjoying it a lot, but i don’t want to ruin anyone’s game, or impose my criteria of fun on others.

at the end of the day it *is* a game, it has to be fun or there is no point in playing. I have had times in the past where i have been in tears about ingame things, have sat for hours chatting to a fellow player as i kicked them from my guild, times where the game was anything but fun. And of course there are other times where you get to experience the other end of the emotional spectrum, again amazing that sitting at my keyboard can create so many emotions and feelings..

what i am trying very badly to say is that everyone is very, very different, we are not always at our best, and it can be very hard to be consistent as a player IC or OOC. There is no point us all trying to agree on everything, or being bitter and resentful at Nevrax - they have an impossible job to keep us all happy. I don't like to be labelled, what i would like is for everyone to be happy(ier). My days of reading the general forum are over now, i've noticed that it has a detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the game

The best route through life is acceptance and understanding; it's rarely the easiest. We are all unique, not everyone feels as we do. it's kinda the selling point of being human =)

I just want to express my gratitude. I found this very informative both as a player and as an individual. Maybe because I am deeply interested in psychology? I understand the classification of different player types.
And it's fun to know what kind of player I am, in these terms

Keep up the work
_______________
Karm

A nice analysis of what seems to be going on atm

michielb wrote:A nice analysis of what seems to be going on atm

I'll probably post the other half tomorrow.

grimjim wrote:I'll probably post the other half tomorrow.

Looking forward to it

grimjim wrote:I'll probably post the other half tomorrow.

Please do!

I'd like to read it too. I definitely play Ryzom to play a game. I like RP'ing -- I used to play D&D a lot with my brother and his friends. I guess video games and RPGs are very seperate things to me. It might also have to do with my first "MMORPG" being a PvP MUD. When you get down to how it felt to play your high level character, it felt a lot like playing network Doom. I love fantasy and scifi, and have always loved single player RPGs as well. I'm very much a gamist as you describe them. I either want to have fun with PvP, or beat the challenging PvE content.

*Note regarding 'gamist'*
This system of critique was designed for TTRPGs, though it has cropped up in computer game discussion as well now. 'Skill players' or 'twitch gamers' - less relevant to MMOs but mentioned here for completism, would generally come under gamists, as the skill is theirs, not their characters.

So then, how to approach creating content or a game that appeals to every sector of a potential (or existing) audience?

Well, thought is divided, just as it is on the relevence of GNS theory in the first place, but I find it a useful critical/analysis tool anyway, so I'm going to use it and use my experience in TTRPGs and in Ryzom for comparison and example. At any rate, some people think you should try and make a game with as broad an appeal to all modes of play as possible to ensure a deep and broad audience. Others think you should concentrate on one particular aspect as compromise often weakens vision, making sure you appeal to and service one particular type of audience.

When I'm writing a game/adventure I tend to fall heavily in the Narrative camp. GNS doesn't talk about 'genre' but a big part of TTRPG design outside of the 'mainstream' (don't laugh) is genre emulation. Genre emulation basically means creating a set of rules (probability functions in this case) that help emulate a particular genre or style in play. Game rules, like code in computer games, are the 'physics' of a game world and - while not the be all and end all - are the skeleton upon which the game 'content' is based and which supports the game content. Conventional wisdom being that a system that supports the game does a 'better' job than an entirely generic system (d20 and GURPS notwithstanding).

RPGs all started with D&D, which has a very basic starting premise. 'Go into dungeons, kill things and take their stuff'. In spite of that, and D&D being generally thought of as a very gamist and roleplaying unfriendly game, it was the daddy to them all and it is D&D's radical and cooperative style of play - a complete departure from the wargames that gave it birth - that we have to thank for a multitude of tabletop and computer RPGs.

If you're trying to appeal to your narrow niche then you need to focus the vast majority of your effort on it.

* A Gamist game will provide a lot of tactical options, stat tweaking, modifiers, special circumstances and combinations to provide advantage and reward _player_ understanding of the system. TTRPG examples - D&D, Tunnels & Trolls

* A Narrativist game will provide a lot of story, a lot of roleplay opportunities and characters will be able to have an impact (local or global) on the progress of the story. (Note that there is a concept in TTRPGs called 'metaplot' - a forward moving and changing gameworld that progresses through the development of the game at the writer rather than the player level. This lessens the importance and impact of the players and serves up a less interactive but ongoing story that people need to keep up with - this is approximately analagous to Nevrax's ongoing story). TTRPG example - Vampire, HeroQuest

* A simulationist game will concentrate on plausibility and believability. Its mechanics will be consistent and will attempt to represent the world and model it in a 'realistic' fashion. There will be a wealth of details - that could in some terms also be called lore - and there will be rules for as much as possible. TTRPG Example - Rollmaster, Harn

If, on the other hand, you are trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible you need to try and supply something for everyone. This is exceedingly difficult in TTRPGs as the game mechanics are not transparent, you have to do the mathematics yourself, roll the dice, look at the charts and interpret the results, all of which can disrupt - very much - any narrativist game elements (though there is a visceral gamist thrill in rolling dice and getting a good result ).

So, the methods of determining or creating a broad based TTRPG game aren't directly relevent to MMORPGs or CRPGs because mechanics can be as complex (and Simulationist) as required without intruding. Still, there is some common ground. Switching to MMORPGs and Ryzom in particular then...

Computer games, generally, have a larger audience and a larger potential audience. MMORPGs, for the most part, need a more regular cashflow model, require larger development teams and have pressure from investors and bills to pay all of which apply pressure to go for 'maximum appeal' even when this may not be the best (long term) option to go round. In theory however, the computer games market is so much bigger than the RPG games market that going for this mass appeal is much more tempting.

In this instance you have to provide something for everyone, or at least try to. You need play/tactical elements for the gamists. Lots of 'power ups' skill options, combinations and opportunities to test their fine character honing.

For the Narrativists you need story, preferably story that they can actually interact with and influence the outcome of, tools to help them roleplay and tell their story and to make them feel a significant part of what is going on.

For the simulationists you need 'things to do' and your world approach has to be consistent both mechanically and in terms of lore/story. The suspension of disbelief should be as total as is both possible and entertaining. Typical MMO Simulationist content would include crafting, farming, digging and a realistic and responsive in game economy.

Got some work to do, so part 3, probably later, will look at the current event - since it's on everyone's mind and thus forms a useful example - and how it could have been broadened to include aspects of all the GNS styles of play.

OK, so, finished most of the work I needed to do already (6am kitten alarm clocks have their uses) - time to look at event design in the context of the current situation.

GOALS
------
There's two sets of goals involved, the 'GM' goals (those of Nevrax) and the player goals.

The player goals are to build the temples to their faith and to weaken the accomplishments of the opposing faction in trying to do the same. Also getting the 'reward' at the end, whatever it turns out to be.

I can only guess at the Nevrax story side goals from this, but I would guess that these include hardening the faction positions, providing new content (in the form of the event, the temples and whatever reward comes out at the end). Probably partially testing aspects of upcoming additions such as R2 and Outposts as well.

To this we'll add 'allow as many different players to participate as possible as a worthy goal.

OBSTACLES
-----------
There are difficulties in acheiving these goals. Broken down one by one...

* Player Goals - Player goals may not match up with designer expectation, but this does not make their goals necessarily invalid. Anticipating player goals is fairly difficult, but a monitoring of forums and chat should help there.

* Player Tastes - Different players like different things, GNS. Some people have a near allergic reaction to some types of content so it is best to provide a wide array of options to cater for as many as possible, OR to offer alternates. No particular style or type should be rewarded more or played up to more than another. Mixing styles is fine so long as the ones that segments object to harshly are kept discrete.

* Player levels - Quite frankly 'levels' are an awful, awful thing, creating an insurmountably gulf between players of different experience and often barring people from certain things. Ryzom is a halfway house between a level and a skill game but the massive differences in power level between low level and high level make creating even handed content even more difficult. Low levels need to be able to participate, high levels need to be challenged.

* Balance - The Mage class remains the unbeatable damage dealer. This isn't something that's easily fixed though, but they do generally outstrip others in PvP (which is part of this event).

* Faction positions - The existing lore and background, as well as the majority of the play thus far, does not support this factionalisation.

* Providing new content - It must work and be in place.

* Rewards - Must be worthwhile and commensurate to effort/time invested.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES
------------------------
* Player Goals/Tastes
A computer game lacks the versatility and immediate creative capacity of a human games master. Content cannot be pulled out of your *** at the last minute to adapt to crazy player goals but it IS possible to anticipate and provide for the more prevalent attitudes and desires. In this case those anticipated desires should include...
1 - Non PvP inclusive content.
2 - PvP content.
3 - Crafter/Harvester content.
4 - Switching sides easily/working for the 'bad guys'.
5 - Selling materials
6 - Non faction (Neutral/Hominist) content.
7 - Non-rp/RP-lite options to get info.

* Player levels
These present a massive challenge to providing universal content, especially in something that includes PvP, as the level gulf leads to frustration, annoyance and ganking. This can be accounted for in the non pvp areas, but also by banding rewards so that the incentive to slaughter lower levels is lessened.

* Balance
Balance is an extremely delicate matter that cannot be addressed for single events.

* Faction positions
The existing lore very much supports the previously existing state of peace, friendship and cooperation. The lead up to the event needs to include credible, plausible and consistent reasons for an increase in aggression.

* Rewards
Listen and judge from the previous instances.

END RESULT
-----------
As I would have designed the event based on the above criteria... (Anything not explicitly mentioned would remain the same).

1 - The lead up to the event would have included much more, including mini events demonstrating karavan incursions into kami land and vice versa, a week of decreased kami tolerance in Karavan lands as a punishment. Some RP events to support the karavan contentions about the evil kami (so far most events seem to have portrayed the karavan in a negative light, not the kami). A proper context for a war would have been developed, rather than it appearing so suddenly and incongruously.
This would have included the voting events, but these would have had some in game effect. With the Tryker voting that they didn't mind either temple being built this could have, for example, meant that neither temple was a FvF area or a harvesting island in the lakelands for these temples was a non pvp area.

2 - There would be true neutral/hominist options. Those being
a) A Temple of Peace to be built, with honour and rewards gained. This could even retain PvP, both factions against hominists, since they'd likely prefer to concentrate on their own areas and leave the hominists be.
b) Honour for killing kitin.
c) A 'peace' flag or title - no effect, but existing.
d) The option to CHOOSE faction, including 'neutral'. Neutral would make you able to interact with both sides but also make you attackable from both sides.

3 - The kitin and materials would be banded in broad bands from 50 at the outside in steps of 50 to 250 at the centre.
(50(100(150(200(250)200)150)100)50)

4 - The announcements that were made would also be available after the event from NPC 'heralds'. These would repeat the news when clicked on and would be activated after the announcement event were over. This would be good for RPers and non RPers alike. The non RPers wouldn't have to attend a 'boring' event and the RPers wouldn't have to put up with assorted shenanigans from bored people.

5 - Killing defenceless or lower level targets would provide less, even no or negative, honour.

6 - Honour would be given a different, less loaded name.

7 - DP would be off in the island area.