I think I'm starting to understand you OP. The many threads you've started in the past few weeks seem to have one thing in common: your belief that gamers can be socially engineered to play in ways other than the way they've already chosen to play.
Nice thought... good luck with that
I sorta get the idea that he wants his flavor of idealism to become the accepted norm. Not that all of his ideals are bad (subjective), just not realistic.
I don't care if my ideas become normal or not. I don't consider myself to be normal, so I don't expect normal people to like my ideas. Although, to be honest, I'm not really sure what normal is. Does normal mean that a particular person thinks, speaks, and acts like most other people in any given culture or society?
I think I'm starting to understand you OP. The many threads you've started in the past few weeks seem to have one thing in common: your belief that gamers can be socially engineered to play in ways other than the way they've already chosen to play.
Nice thought... good luck with that
I sorta get the idea that he wants his flavor of idealism to become the accepted norm. Not that all of his ideals are bad (subjective), just not realistic.
No I don't think his ideas, and certainly not his goals, are bad either. But in gaming, players stop doing one thing and start doing a new thing only when the new thing is more entertaining and rewarding.
It's pretty well the same reason why I wish Brad McQuaid all the luck in the world with Pantheon but at the same time I'm highly skeptical that forced grouping as the driving force behind a game will gain wide acceptance.
I'm not gonna play Pantheon, but I don't think the idea of encouraging people to group more often is necessarily bad in an Massively Multi-player Online game. Most pencil-and-paper rpgs usually focus on group play rather than solo play. If people are anti-social, aren't they better off playing single-player rpgs?
I think I'm starting to understand you OP. The many threads you've started in the past few weeks seem to have one thing in common: your belief that gamers can be socially engineered to play in ways other than the way they've already chosen to play.
Nice thought... good luck with that
I sorta get the idea that he wants his flavor of idealism to become the accepted norm. Not that all of his ideals are bad (subjective), just not realistic.
No I don't think his ideas, and certainly not his goals, are bad either. But in gaming, players stop doing one thing and start doing a new thing only when the new thing is more entertaining and rewarding.
It's pretty well the same reason why I wish Brad McQuaid all the luck in the world with Pantheon but at the same time I'm highly skeptical that forced grouping as the driving force behind a game will gain wide acceptance.
I don't believe that was ever their goal. They are just trying to capitalize on a niche market like many other indie companies. The market is so saturated that trying to make a new blockbuster is pointless. Part of the problem with MMOs is that they are never retired. People just keep playing the same games over and over again. Their turnover rate is way too long.
Yeah, I don't really know why we still need WoW. It was too boring for me when I tried it back in late 2010-2011. Tried again in early 2015. It was even more boring than ever. Vanilla is gone, and it won't come back. Not that it was that great during Vanilla either.
I'm not a roleplayer but I always try to play on roleplayer servers since there is an inverse ratio to A-holes and roleplayers, I usually find.
Role-players on role-playing servers may have come from a history of playing pencil-and-paper rpgs. Your observation may be true, but I'm not sure. I haven't played on a role-playing server in the past because I really get no consequential benefit in game terms from role-playing in any MMORPGs I know. I have role-played at times on non role-playing servers when I felt like it though.
How about even creating a system that rewarded or incentivized it?
More Dungeon/Game Masters could be used. Paid ones with legal-and-binding contracts.
Cost! Cost! Cost!
Hiring more DMs is the idea, but really staffing DM positions on a 24/7 basis for each server prevents companies from attempting this. Workload on the DMs might be enough to warrant many more than 1 DM per shift. If that runs to a team of 7 or 8 or more DMs per shift, that becomes a major hit to the operational costs. Companies aren't in the gaming business for altruistic reasons. Traditional DMs simply do not scale.
I love the idea of incentivizing and rewarding active role playing.
My idea from my 2002 attempt to build a game was to have a distinct set of personality traits on an opposing scale. I had seven pairs, but you could have more or less. I would allow the players to vote daily on how others acted, essentially empowering all players to participate in this aspect of a 'group DM function'. Act greedy, get voted greedy and your Generous / Greedy trait shifts towards the Greedy end. Then I tied the resulting value to bonuses to specific miracles offered by specific gods. Not all gods rewarded Generous; some rewarded acting Greedy.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
How about even creating a system that rewarded or incentivized it?
More Dungeon/Game Masters could be used. Paid ones with legal-and-binding contracts.
Cost! Cost! Cost!
Hiring more DMs is the idea, but really staffing DM positions on a 24/7 basis for each server prevents companies from attempting this. Workload on the DMs might be enough to warrant many more than 1 DM per shift. If that runs to a team of 7 or 8 or more DMs per shift, that becomes a major hit to the operational costs. Companies aren't in the gaming business for altruistic reasons. Traditional DMs simply do not scale.
I love the idea of incentivizing and rewarding active role playing.
My idea from my 2002 attempt to build a game was to have a distinct set of personality traits on an opposing scale. I had seven pairs, but you could have more or less. I would allow the players to vote daily on how others acted, essentially empowering all players to participate in this aspect of a 'group DM function'. Act greedy, get voted greedy and your Generous / Greedy trait shifts towards the Greedy end. Then I tied the resulting value to bonuses to specific miracles offered by specific gods. Not all gods rewarded Generous; some rewarded acting Greedy.
Interesting. Might be possible. But what if not all players want to vote, or some players vote for themselves on different accounts?
As for the cost of employing Dungeon/Game Masters, that depends on how profitable the game is.
If role-playing was enforced there'd be a lot less players, period.
I didn't say that all games that currently exist or that are ever made should be this way. Or all servers on a single game even. It might be worthwhile to try it as an experiment though. Many games have multiple servers.
Forcing role playing is not a good idea. What needs to be done is have methods in place to severely punish anyone for griefing and ganking. The problem is that most games, intentionally or not, are made to attract that kind of player these days. Punishments for that type of behavior are either non-existing or so minor that it's laughable as a deterrent.
If you're going to have enough GMs online all the time to make sure everyone speaks in character unless they use the OOC chat channel, you are probably better off just giving them each a mighty banhammer and sending them out to take care of the griefers and gankers instead.
Forcing role playing is not a good idea. What needs to be done is have methods in place to severely punish anyone for griefing and ganking. The problem is that most games, intentionally or not, are made to attract that kind of player these days. Punishments for that type of behavior are either non-existing or so minor that it's laughable as a deterrent.
If you're going to have enough GMs online all the time to make sure everyone speaks in character unless they use the OOC chat channel, you are probably better off just giving them each a mighty banhammer and sending them out to take care of the griefers and gankers instead.
If it's your opinion that it should never be tried anywhere ever in any game on any server at any time, that's cool.
As for giving players a banhammer on other players, that would be a bad idea, I'm pretty sure. But you wouldn't need a GM to monitor everyone. You could have a report OOC option which the players could forward to the GM.
I think the gravity of the game world is a primary factor in incentivizing role playing and taking one's character seriously. Trolling fluctuates along with that, I suspect.
If your character can sprint for ten seconds, find a town and log off, or log off in the woods and be safe, then the gravity of existing in the world is decreased, trolling increases, and role playing decreases.
I.e., when there is a cost to trolling, it happens less. Given that it is still a game, trolling obviously still happens, but far less the less game-like it becomes; see end game High investment games. Tossing a high level match in SC2 happens, but only when the humor/opportunity is similarly rare.
There is also the complication of those who play for the game aspect only and ignore story entirely. Unless gameplay is also held in abeyance pending their investment, they'll treat it as abundant; trading it cheap for the rush of immaturity.
I think I'm starting to understand you OP. The many threads you've started in the past few weeks seem to have one thing in common: your belief that gamers can be socially engineered to play in ways other than the way they've already chosen to play.
Nice thought... good luck with that
You give humanity far too much credit. History has conclusively demonstrated that humans are easily malleable. Indeed, the biggest question to be answered is, "Will humans require a Shepard to lead his flock to safety, or will we bleat loudly enough to convince ourselves to seek shelter."
I think the gravity of the game world is a primary factor in incentivizing role playing and taking one's character seriously. Trolling fluctuates along with that, I suspect.
If your character can sprint for ten seconds, find a town and log off, or log off in the woods and be safe, then the gravity of existing in the world is decreased, trolling increases, and role playing decreases.
I.e., when there is a cost to trolling, it happens less. Given that it is still a game, trolling obviously still happens, but far less the less game-like it becomes; see end game High investment games. Tossing a high level match in SC2 happens, but only when the humor/opportunity is similarly rare.
There is also the complication of those who play for the game aspect only and ignore story entirely. Unless gameplay is also held in abeyance pending their investment, they'll treat it as abundant; trading it cheap for the rush of immaturity.
Yes. Enforcing or requiring role-play is probably not feasible in the utlra-unrealistic way that most, if not all, MMORPGs are made at the moment. But in a realistic, dynamic, true role-playing game online, more people might actually want to role-play their characters. Possibly. Just a thought. I don't know. I can't think or speak or act for anyone but myself. I'm just me.
I think I'm starting to understand you OP. The many threads you've started in the past few weeks seem to have one thing in common: your belief that gamers can be socially engineered to play in ways other than the way they've already chosen to play.
Nice thought... good luck with that
Perhaps if you enjoy playing MMORPGs the way they're currently being made, you have already been engineered to play in ways that the developers of games have chosen you to play.
I think I'm starting to understand you OP. The many threads you've started in the past few weeks seem to have one thing in common: your belief that gamers can be socially engineered to play in ways other than the way they've already chosen to play.
Nice thought... good luck with that
You give humanity far too much credit. History has conclusively demonstrated that humans are easily malleable. Indeed, the biggest question to be answered is, "Will humans require a Shepard to lead his flock to safety, or will we bleat loudly enough to convince ourselves to seek shelter."
When I play most, if not the vast majority or even all, MMORPGs available to play to at this time, I feel like I'm being engineered to enjoy playing something like a rodent in a maze chasing a piece of cheese. Sometimes I may have to fight other rodents or different types of creatures in the maze, but it doesn't matter because I still need to get the cheese.
Hiring more DMs is the idea, but really staffing DM positions on a 24/7 basis for each server prevents companies from attempting this. Workload on the DMs might be enough to warrant many more than 1 DM per shift. If that runs to a team of 7 or 8 or more DMs per shift, that becomes a major hit to the operational costs. Companies aren't in the gaming business for altruistic reasons. Traditional DMs simply do not scale.
I love the idea of incentivizing and rewarding active role playing.
My idea from my 2002 attempt to build a game was to have a distinct set of personality traits on an opposing scale. I had seven pairs, but you could have more or less. I would allow the players to vote daily on how others acted, essentially empowering all players to participate in this aspect of a 'group DM function'. Act greedy, get voted greedy and your Generous / Greedy trait shifts towards the Greedy end. Then I tied the resulting value to bonuses to specific miracles offered by specific gods. Not all gods rewarded Generous; some rewarded acting Greedy.
Interesting. Might be possible. But what if not all players want to vote, or some players vote for themselves on different accounts?
As for the cost of employing Dungeon/Game Masters, that depends on how profitable the game is.
I had identified numerous stipulations about how voting would work. It would be entirely voluntary. A character could cast 2 votes per day + 1 / hour online in that session. A character could not vote for any other character on that account or any account using the same credit card (it was 2002, the payment model would have been monthly sub with a required credit card). A character could not vote for the same character / trait combination for 4 days (no power boosting or griefing by continuous voting). I was even considering requiring the character to have been in proximity to another character sometime during the session in order to vote. The one exception to the voting rules would be a special 'metagame' vote for a character, to keep someone from begging or lobbying for everyone to vote.
It may not have been a perfect system, but I think it would have accomplished what I wanted it to do, which was encourage people to act out their character in chat or emotes.
The traits would have been some sort of exponential scale. Moving from 0 (neutral) to 1 or -1 (a step towards either extreme) would have taken only a few votes. Moving from 1 to 2 or -1 to -2 would take many more. It couldn't have been a one-for-one vote-to-effect in order to prevent griefing. (You've worked hard to become known as Generous, one person couldn't wreck all your work in one go by voting you Selfish).
In addition to the various gods and their miracles, the NPCs would also react to the character's public personality, and they could vote for you too. A Generous person could expect to be beset by beggars in certain locations; don't give and the beggars might vote you as Selfish. Likewise, it isn't wise to stiff your serving staff. Trading money or items to another character well beyond the value of goods returned could also give you a Generous reputation (twinking). Merchants could recognize the generous customer and the more unscrupulous could charge more. Some of the game mechanisms could also impact the character's reputation. (Money is easy to track, others like Valorous - Cowardly aren't quite as simple).
This personality traits / reputation would have been my attempt to "Make what you /say matter".
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
In MMO's you are role playing as someone else. Maybe in second life you can use your real name, make your avatar look actually like you, and actually play what you do in real life but in others you're usually the hero going around helping people and by killing monsters, or a villain doing what they do.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
@Octagon7711- But most people don't normally speak and interact with other player characters and non-player characters as if they are actually the character they are playing.
@Vermillion_Raventhal - There are actually such things as dictionaries which describe the commonly accepted usage of words and terms.
In LOTRO there were certain guidelines there was extra attention from dedicated GMS. You could report inappropriate names and you could report harassment. (I don't have to explain that people still found ways to troll and grief) Yet the "roleplayers" also used the rules to enforce their view of Roleplay on others.
example:
As first names had to be unique, picking names for alts was harder. My main was Keller. Then I made some alts which were Kellers kin. Blacksmith Keller, Cook Keller, and a few more. Instead of interacting with my alts, some eltists reported them for having inappropriate names. If they have used /s, they would have known their first name. But in our Kinship the habit was to identify others with occupation (like Cook), physique (Fatty) or appearance (Red). Yet they only saw the "magical" name tag above my alts heads. At least twice a month a GM would whisper/message me about my name (per alt). I would explain and could keep the name. Then the budget was gone and my alts were auto forced to change name. A petition would undo it, but it would take too much time. So I gave them other names.
Why can't we just add a Roleplay tag as reward. Once a GM monitored your behavior and deem you worthy you receive that tag. The tag also needs a second mechanic. You can set "ignore all" or "ignore everyone without RP tag". The last will result in seeing chat of only other roleplayers.
Yet I don't really need a system. Either someone roleplays or he doesn't. If he doesn't I can pretend he's an unlucky person, punished by the gods with insanity. And when you encounter one of these insane persons on a pvp server, I sometimes put an end to his suffering and sent him to meet his maker.
@Octagon7711- But most people don't normally speak and interact with other player characters and non-player characters as if they are actually the character they are playing.
@Vermillion_Raventhal - There are actually such things as dictionaries which describe the commonly accepted usage of words and terms.
Defining a word is not defining it in use of something that comes down to an opinion. Role playing at its basics is simply using a character and defining his role. It could be 4th wall breaking asshole mass murderer but that's still a role.
@Octagon7711- But most people don't normally speak and interact with other player characters and non-player characters as if they are actually the character they are playing.
@Vermillion_Raventhal - There are actually such things as dictionaries which describe the commonly accepted usage of words and terms.
Defining a word is not defining it in use of something that comes down to an opinion. Role playing at its basics is simply using a character and defining his role. It could be 4th wall breaking asshole mass murderer but that's still a role.
You can try to define something however you like. People do it all the time. But if we don't use the commonly accepted usages of words found in dictionaries, then we'll end up creating new languages and not being able to understand each other after awhile. That actually did happen quite often in the past.
@Keller - I've never found it difficult to come up with original names for characters, but I understand your dilemma. However, there are multiple websites online that list names in foreign languages or even possible fantasy names. It really isn't that hard to make or find an original name for a character (one that isn't being used on the server yet).
Not everyone need to role-play. I never said I wanted to make all games or all servers like this. How about just one game or one server on one game that tried it?
Anyone playing an MMORPG using that character and making any decision for that character in that game world is satisfying the dictionary use if the word you presented.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I don't care if my ideas become normal or not. I don't consider myself to be normal, so I don't expect normal people to like my ideas. Although, to be honest, I'm not really sure what normal is. Does normal mean that a particular person thinks, speaks, and acts like most other people in any given culture or society?
Yeah, I don't really know why we still need WoW. It was too boring for me when I tried it back in late 2010-2011. Tried again in early 2015. It was even more boring than ever. Vanilla is gone, and it won't come back. Not that it was that great during Vanilla either.
Role-players on role-playing servers may have come from a history of playing pencil-and-paper rpgs. Your observation may be true, but I'm not sure. I haven't played on a role-playing server in the past because I really get no consequential benefit in game terms from role-playing in any MMORPGs I know. I have role-played at times on non role-playing servers when I felt like it though.
Cost! Cost! Cost!
Hiring more DMs is the idea, but really staffing DM positions on a 24/7 basis for each server prevents companies from attempting this. Workload on the DMs might be enough to warrant many more than 1 DM per shift. If that runs to a team of 7 or 8 or more DMs per shift, that becomes a major hit to the operational costs. Companies aren't in the gaming business for altruistic reasons. Traditional DMs simply do not scale.
I love the idea of incentivizing and rewarding active role playing.
My idea from my 2002 attempt to build a game was to have a distinct set of personality traits on an opposing scale. I had seven pairs, but you could have more or less. I would allow the players to vote daily on how others acted, essentially empowering all players to participate in this aspect of a 'group DM function'. Act greedy, get voted greedy and your Generous / Greedy trait shifts towards the Greedy end. Then I tied the resulting value to bonuses to specific miracles offered by specific gods. Not all gods rewarded Generous; some rewarded acting Greedy.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Interesting. Might be possible. But what if not all players want to vote, or some players vote for themselves on different accounts?
As for the cost of employing Dungeon/Game Masters, that depends on how profitable the game is.
I didn't say that all games that currently exist or that are ever made should be this way. Or all servers on a single game even. It might be worthwhile to try it as an experiment though. Many games have multiple servers.
If you're going to have enough GMs online all the time to make sure everyone speaks in character unless they use the OOC chat channel, you are probably better off just giving them each a mighty banhammer and sending them out to take care of the griefers and gankers instead.
If it's your opinion that it should never be tried anywhere ever in any game on any server at any time, that's cool.
As for giving players a banhammer on other players, that would be a bad idea, I'm pretty sure. But you wouldn't need a GM to monitor everyone. You could have a report OOC option which the players could forward to the GM.
If your character can sprint for ten seconds, find a town and log off, or log off in the woods and be safe, then the gravity of existing in the world is decreased, trolling increases, and role playing decreases.
I.e., when there is a cost to trolling, it happens less. Given that it is still a game, trolling obviously still happens, but far less the less game-like it becomes; see end game High investment games. Tossing a high level match in SC2 happens, but only when the humor/opportunity is similarly rare.
There is also the complication of those who play for the game aspect only and ignore story entirely. Unless gameplay is also held in abeyance pending their investment, they'll treat it as abundant; trading it cheap for the rush of immaturity.
You give humanity far too much credit. History has conclusively demonstrated that humans are easily malleable. Indeed, the biggest question to be answered is, "Will humans require a Shepard to lead his flock to safety, or will we bleat loudly enough to convince ourselves to seek shelter."
Yes. Enforcing or requiring role-play is probably not feasible in the utlra-unrealistic way that most, if not all, MMORPGs are made at the moment. But in a realistic, dynamic, true role-playing game online, more people might actually want to role-play their characters. Possibly. Just a thought. I don't know. I can't think or speak or act for anyone but myself. I'm just me.
Perhaps if you enjoy playing MMORPGs the way they're currently being made, you have already been engineered to play in ways that the developers of games have chosen you to play.
I had identified numerous stipulations about how voting would work. It would be entirely voluntary. A character could cast 2 votes per day + 1 / hour online in that session. A character could not vote for any other character on that account or any account using the same credit card (it was 2002, the payment model would have been monthly sub with a required credit card). A character could not vote for the same character / trait combination for 4 days (no power boosting or griefing by continuous voting). I was even considering requiring the character to have been in proximity to another character sometime during the session in order to vote. The one exception to the voting rules would be a special 'metagame' vote for a character, to keep someone from begging or lobbying for everyone to vote.
It may not have been a perfect system, but I think it would have accomplished what I wanted it to do, which was encourage people to act out their character in chat or emotes.
The traits would have been some sort of exponential scale. Moving from 0 (neutral) to 1 or -1 (a step towards either extreme) would have taken only a few votes. Moving from 1 to 2 or -1 to -2 would take many more. It couldn't have been a one-for-one vote-to-effect in order to prevent griefing. (You've worked hard to become known as Generous, one person couldn't wreck all your work in one go by voting you Selfish).
In addition to the various gods and their miracles, the NPCs would also react to the character's public personality, and they could vote for you too. A Generous person could expect to be beset by beggars in certain locations; don't give and the beggars might vote you as Selfish. Likewise, it isn't wise to stiff your serving staff. Trading money or items to another character well beyond the value of goods returned could also give you a Generous reputation (twinking). Merchants could recognize the generous customer and the more unscrupulous could charge more. Some of the game mechanisms could also impact the character's reputation. (Money is easy to track, others like Valorous - Cowardly aren't quite as simple).
This personality traits / reputation would have been my attempt to "Make what you /say matter".
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
@Vermillion_Raventhal - There are actually such things as dictionaries which describe the commonly accepted usage of words and terms.
In LOTRO there were certain guidelines there was extra attention from dedicated GMS. You could report inappropriate names and you could report harassment. (I don't have to explain that people still found ways to troll and grief) Yet the "roleplayers" also used the rules to enforce their view of Roleplay on others.
example:
As first names had to be unique, picking names for alts was harder. My main was Keller. Then I made some alts which were Kellers kin. Blacksmith Keller, Cook Keller, and a few more.
Instead of interacting with my alts, some eltists reported them for having inappropriate names. If they have used /s, they would have known their first name. But in our Kinship the habit was to identify others with occupation (like Cook), physique (Fatty) or appearance (Red). Yet they only saw the "magical" name tag above my alts heads. At least twice a month a GM would whisper/message me about my name (per alt). I would explain and could keep the name. Then the budget was gone and my alts were auto forced to change name. A petition would undo it, but it would take too much time. So I gave them other names.
Why can't we just add a Roleplay tag as reward. Once a GM monitored your behavior and deem you worthy you receive that tag. The tag also needs a second mechanic. You can set "ignore all" or "ignore everyone without RP tag". The last will result in seeing chat of only other roleplayers.
Yet I don't really need a system. Either someone roleplays or he doesn't. If he doesn't I can pretend he's an unlucky person, punished by the gods with insanity. And when you encounter one of these insane persons on a pvp server, I sometimes put an end to his suffering and sent him to meet his maker.
Defining a word is not defining it in use of something that comes down to an opinion. Role playing at its basics is simply using a character and defining his role. It could be 4th wall breaking asshole mass murderer but that's still a role.
You can try to define something however you like. People do it all the time. But if we don't use the commonly accepted usages of words found in dictionaries, then we'll end up creating new languages and not being able to understand each other after awhile. That actually did happen quite often in the past.
Not everyone need to role-play. I never said I wanted to make all games or all servers like this. How about just one game or one server on one game that tried it?