| |
| Ep 3 – V isn't for Victory -- BACKGROUND & CODA |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Phial |
 Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
UV Master Programmer
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 5520
Service Group: PLC
|
I'm going to reply to your analysis here although I address both of your posts.
This feedback is very important. As such, if you can flesh out the contrarian views that you share with Silent I would be very interested in hearing.
In your posts you successfully identify some of the ongoing forum game issues (players [and GMs] MiA, Buzz killers) but the 'judges' solution is currently not feasible due entirely to the low number of players actually participating in any form of online Paranoia. More to the philosophical/theoretical issue then, it was decided that within the (standard IC forum) rules the determination of outcomes was strongly devolved to the lowest possible level with two counter balances:
1/Higher level players (GREEN) could control NPCs and thus (If on hand and motivated) steer the action.
2/GMs would involve themselves if players couldn't act like happy adults and mash fingers hard.
While practice has shown that there are still problems with this model, to be frank, it is the best we have been able to find. The final kicker in finding a successful mode for the regulation of play is that this social group (like any other) reacts most strongly to the more negative outcomes (High profile player dummy spits) and tends to ignore the quiet success that is a smooth playing experience. This unequitably weights the occassional bad behaviour of some players against the vastly more prolific good behaviour of most players.
Having said that: Removing the conflict mechanism is anathema to Paranoia. Unfortunately "V isn't for Victory" is a step in this direction and was what made me most hesitant to deploy it.
tl:dr While I am listening I haven't heard anything that moves me in any direction I wasn't already going. Please keep telling me what you want.
_________________
I'm usually online Monday to Saturday and, sod it, most Sunday's too  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Silent |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
BLUE
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 2885
Service Group: HPD&MC
|
| firedup13 wrote: |
| I've found myself typically agreeing with Silent's point of view on most things related to the direction of IC Forum play, even when the majority of voices in the given discussion were to the contrary. So, it feels very strange to have the contrary feeling on a point regarding IC forum play. |
The reason I supported Autopilot is particularly my own predilection towards "winning" (getting high clearance and political power). I still maintain trying to win isn't bad, and that it's nice to have a goal, but I had an obsession with "winning", which ultimately meant that I wasn't having any fun with trying to accomplish that (either because "winning" wasn't satisfying or I always felt myself "losing").
Knowing however that all you can really do is set the budget (and that nothing else you do matters) was incredibly liberating for me, because it meant that there was really no way (other than the budget) for me to influence the results and thus, no reason to bother trying to "win". It allowed me the freedom to role-play (since I no longer have to worry or concern myself with the "game" in question).
In addition, all my attempts to "win" in Phase IV was to get political power and/or high clearance; when you grant both to me, I'm not sure if I wish or desire to continue further. For my IC character, starting with the whole "SAUL" debacle, getting VIOLET status was the dream, the McGuffin, the whole reason for existing. Now that I "got" it, it's really is just "You Unlocked Extra Mode, You Can Now Fool Around" sort of deal.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that my own experience colored my view of this game mechanic.
_________________
| Phial, in ARC wrote: |
| I know I'm a dummy but, I realised as recently as yesterday why the IC game is in PLN sector. |
Silent-B-PLN-6
Chief of Security(pending)
Works in: HPD&MC, Internal Security
Wearing: BLUE Jumpsuit
Silent-V-PLN-10 (deceased) Runs XAI Subsector |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| firedup13 |
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BLUE
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 2917
Service Group: CPU
|
My best understanding is that one of the key philosophical splits on P-live has been the proponents of "Shared literary experience", or the Forum "Story", in contrast to those who preferred the idea of of "playing to win", or the Forum "Game". Pages and pages and pages have been written on these two 'sides' - I still hold it should be a goal to allow for doing BOTH at the same time; these goals do not have to be mutually exclusive of one another.
With that said, of the two I am personally MUCH more drawn to the idea of playing a Game that the idea of writing a Story, and I would wager that the majority of people that find their way to P-Live come with the intention to PLAY an online version of this wonderful Game. As such, my belief is that meeting this expectation/desire would be of benefit to the goal of increasing the player base.
| Phial wrote: |
| Removing the conflict mechanism is anathema to Paranoia. |
I agree, and I think that giving Players the chance to play a Game in hopes of "winning" can surely motivate needed conflict - players aren't able to "win" without it.
Of course, given the setting, clearly it is UNLIKELY any given player will "WIN", and the players need to have their heads screwed on straight (forcibly by a docbot, if required,) to be willing to accept this basic truth, and to be sporting about it when their Character's plans fall short... To be able to shift into humbly accepting the simple enjoyment of the role playing experience/"Story" aspect of the forum (as entertainment is created along the way...) BUT, the CHANCE to succeed should exist. It shouldn't be 100% failure, 100% of the time. When players of a Game feel they have NO chance to succeed, and their actions have little or no consequence on the end result... that is the ultimate demotivator of a Player Base.
| Silent wrote: |
| In addition, all my attempts to "win" in Phase IV was to get political power and/or high clearance; when you grant both to me, I'm not sure if I wish or desire to continue further. |
I ackowledge this is a potentially deadly problem. If players can play to win, and then a given character reaches a pinnacle of success, the player can become at-risk to lose the desire to continue further; I think I saw this unfold before my very eyes when the majority of the (then-active) IC players were promoted to BLUE as service group heads; many of those players soon thereafter went inactive. (Of course, I don't know for certain if there was bone fide causality in that situation, or just simply attrition continuing it's traitorous march forward.)
On the other hand, the stated underlying philosophy that "you can NOT win the Forum Game" clearly has not averted crippling attrition... I submit that there's not much risk of things getting worse, and it might be worth taking the chance of shifting gears on this position. And hey... remember, the game we're playing is PARANOIA... the REAL answer would be that the more success a given character has, the more worried s/he should be about trying to hold on to that success.
A great example of this is what we saw unfold when several different groups all plotted against President-Elect Phial. The more any given character "wins", the more the entire rest of the player base would have reason to scheme to oppose the new force... And, in the alternative... let's say you're the new force, and characters "jump on the bandwagon" and attempt to ally with you for the perks of being an ally instead of an enemy... are those "followers" REALLY loyal, or are they scheming to take what you have? (and should too many players be content to simply lie sideways in the public troff, the secret societies can monkey wrench that right quick... and when the balance of power inevitably shifts, those who were indeed the most loyal will be those most likely to have a price to pay when the next new world order is ushered in.)
tl:dr - Don't dictate that Fun (in the Paranoia Forum Game) must needs ALWAYS mean character's futility. Players should at least have a small chance to succeed/"win"... Even if failure is more likely than success, and any success achieved is very likely to ultimately prove temporary. Howzabout a good old fashion game of King of The Hill, where each player does have a bone fide shot to "be on top" .............. until the other players work to drag the most successful down, of course, in hopes of becoming the replacement!
_________________
Hugh-B-DED-11, Coordinator - Evacuations & Order
Has two black eyes.
Wearing:
A BLUE Jumpsuit with boots
Digital ID Tag(displays name, with a bright bar indicating Security Clearance of BLUE.)
[OOC: I'm usually online every day, though Mondays tend to be hectic.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Phial |
| Posted: Wed May 25, 2011 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
UV Master Programmer
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 5520
Service Group: PLC
|
Thanks for that.
I think I can work 'king of the hill' into the next episode format.
To your post. Thank You for taking the time to review the issue. You do realise that 'When players of a Game feel they have NO chance to succeed, and their actions have little or no consequence on the end result... that is the ultimate demotivator of a Player Base.' is almost word for word one of the issues covered in the Paranoia rule book for table top play? The solution in table top is to have the players focus on betraying each other with a side helping of secret society advancement.
The single fundamental key to the Paranoia mindset is to accept that your actions (successful or not) have no meaning in the context of the milieu. I'm only using Silent as an example here because you brought him up. Silent was always an above average player who tried very hard to play within the structure that had been set up.
When I first came to have an active role GMing the IC game I had to take on the game 'culture' that had come before so there was some semblence of continuity. It wasn't until I had this responsibility that I seriously wrestled with the various issues associated with implementing IC forum gameplay. The division between the two camps quickly coalesed into 'Those who fundamentally got the concept as presented' (story group) and the 'Rebel faction'. The majority of players were in the story group. The remainder to one extent or another wanted the way things were run changed to a much more active participation mode. This was problematic due to staff coverage but fundamentally they also wanted a way to 'win'.
In Silent's case it was a solid dedication to getting promoted. The actual site mechanism for gaining promotion is STILL a closely guarded secret and will remain so. I will go only so far as to say that it was set up to intrinsically favour the story group. Silents remark 'I liked not having to do as much RP posts except if I really wanted to, since the entire "game" is set on autopilot for me. Other than that, I never really interacted with the game, and I doubt I'll involve myself in Ep. 4 (I only involved in Ep. 3 to get "closure", for lack of a better term).' pretty much sums up why he wasn't catered to/for previously. If you want an action based progression oriented gaming experience there are literally thousands of other choices.
There was a time (around the circus) where there might have been an opportunity to implement a more active participation mode but it also coincided with a large number of staff burnouts. Succession planning hasn't ever been one of our strengths here on P-Live and that particular nadir spelt the end of any hope to move to a more particapatory mode.
Also Play =! Win. You can play a game (eg. leap frog) where there is no defined mechanism for success.
Having said all that:
This last episode was the best distillation of how to meet all the requirements and play to the IC forum game strengths that I could devise based on all my experience and all of the inputs from every player. The next Episode will be the next distillation, and so it goes.
If it appears that I am obstinately holding course on this while the ship goes down all I can say is the level of agonisiong that I do over this issue is considerable and it has been discussed ad nauseam over the course of the last 5 years both inside and outside the GM group. In terms of the on going future of the site I don't now think that the internal workings of the IC forum game have much bearing on our population.
Lets see what the next episode brings and take it from there?
_________________
I'm usually online Monday to Saturday and, sod it, most Sunday's too |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| firedup13 |
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BLUE
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 2917
Service Group: CPU
|
Additional thoughts seem more appropriate in another existing thread.
As to the immediate plans for the next episode; On to the next distillation.
Excelsior!
_________________
Hugh-B-DED-11, Coordinator - Evacuations & Order
Has two black eyes.
Wearing:
A BLUE Jumpsuit with boots
Digital ID Tag(displays name, with a bright bar indicating Security Clearance of BLUE.)
[OOC: I'm usually online every day, though Mondays tend to be hectic.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The GM |
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
In-Character Game GM
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 803
|
Next Episode under development and will be up around the weekend.
_________________
The GM (Game Master) oversees the running of the IC game. His word is final. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting new topics in this forum is not available at your clearance
Replying in this forum is not available at your clearance
Editing new topics in this forum is not available at your clearance
Deleting your posts in this forum is not available at your clearance
Voting in this forum is not available at your clearance
|
|
|
|
