The 3-Month Players
-
@Pavel Well, it was kind of the point of the idea. Run a seasonal server so those who aren’t feeling the current season can get a new experience a few months later and maybe have it be more their vibe. I would much rather run and/or play a L&L server that is long running with deep politics, intrigue, economics, etc. They only other reason that I can think of off of the top of my head to go “seasonal/anthology” is if you’re doing a generational theme and want to timeskip rather than wait a few years for the next generation to age up.
-
@Ominous said in The 3-Month Players:
Well, it was kind of the point of the idea.
Sure, and I’m asking why is appealing to the 3-Month players something you’d want to do? If you make each “season” different enough in order to appeal to the people who gave it a go and weren’t interested, you’re essentially making a new game every six months. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do, but why is appealing to the influx of new people a thing you’d want to entertain?
-
@Pavel No clue. I am floating ideas relevant to the thread. Though, it could be good because the churn of players may keep the game fresh and keep the population from dwindling.
-
The Network did essentially recreate ‘the Bubble’ every new season. This was part of why it wasn’t my thing, but it maintained a decent playerbase and closed on its own terms.
-
@MisterBoring As @Third-Eye mentioned, there was a mini-bubble at the start of each new Season on the Network, and at the beginning of each Hiatus between Seasons. Some people preferred the Hiatus time in the Dome, some people preferred the Seasons, some people came back whenever a particular Season interested them.
Since most Seasons were 4-8 months, there was definitely a tail-off partway through most Seasons, but it did capture the burst at the beginning.
-
I’m going to go on a little rant here but stick with me, I promise it is on topic.
DarkMetal was the most well designed WoD MUSH to ever exist. Wanna fight about it? Here we go!
The reason your players are burning out after 3 months is that there are no stakes in your game.
I hate to sound like one of /those/ people but… game devs today are too soft on their players.
It practically takes an act of God to kill off someone’s character so they get stuck with the same character for long periods of time, or they make alts and that results in burn out just as quick because they can never find in-depth character development with their focus divided between multiple alts.Dark Metal got a few things right that no one else did.
- Anyone could die at any time.
- There were safe zones for each sphere if you wanted to just do soft RP. You never needed to be in danger as long as you stayed in your zone.
- Making a new character was fast and easy! If you died it wasn’t a big deal.
- Staff didn’t give a s*** what you played, as long as you played, so approval was automated.
On Dark Metal you had to fight tooth and nail to survive long enough to get to a point you could walk in the mixed spaces without being in danger of being made into someone’s midnight snack and you were never fully safe.
You had to struggle to become enough of a bad-ass not to have to live in fear all the time. I can not emphasize enough how important that feeling of progression is to the health of a game.
People want their actions and choices to matter.
When they don’t, people get bored and they wander off.
It’s the same reason people add stakes and drama to TV shows. If nothing changes, there is no point.If you want your game to survive, learn to crush your players hopes and dreams. Learn to let players kill each other off.
Character churn will save your game from player churn.
-
@RedRocket Man, I’m a little sad I missed this game. Sounds like something I’d have tried.
-
@RedRocket said in The 3-Month Players:
You had to struggle to become enough of a bad-ass not to have to live in fear all the time. I can not emphasize enough how important that feeling of progression is to the health of a game.
Many players enjoyed DarkMetal.
Many other players wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole because that style of gameplay holds no appeal to them.
TGG was a game with permadeath, trivially easy chargen, XP-based progression, stakes, drama, rotating “seasons” to keep things fresh, and the some of the most impressive immersive code systems I’ve ever seen. It still had a lot of player turnover. (and about 10 very passionate core players)
People want their actions and choices to matter. … It’s the same reason people add stakes and drama to TV shows. If nothing changes, there is no point.
This I agree with, but routinely killing your PCs off is not the only way to accomplish this. There are plenty of successful TV shows that avoid the Game of Thrones style of knocking off main characters left and right.
There is no one-size-fits-all game.
-
@Raistlin said in The 3-Month Players:
I know I might be in the minority, but I genuinely enjoy games that focus primarily on social interactions and “bar RP.” In fact, I’ve participated in private games where that was the main activity, and found them incredibly fulfilling.
Don’t misunderstand—I appreciate well-crafted plots and would certainly join global events. However, my personal focus tends toward developing character relationships and running private storylines with my RP partners. For me, having the tools and space to tell these intimate stories matters more than participating in numerous public scenes or global plot arcs.
I find the most enjoyment in those smaller moments between characters: the conversations that reveal backstories, the gradual building of trust, and the organic development of relationships (whether friendly, romantic, or antagonistic). These interactions often create the most memorable RP experiences for me.
Sorry to barge in on this, but you sound like just the type of player I’m trying to better understand, or maybe to get to better understand me. If you’re willing I would like to pick your brains on this topic?
See, I’m someone who thrives on running plots etc. partly because I enjoy storytelling this way, and partly because it’s an ingrained duty I feel as staff. It’s been my observation that when nobody is doing that, then everything tends to fizzle, and so since I’m good at running them I always default to doing so when no-one else is.
The problem is, this has largely felt like a thankless task over the years, because unfortunately the number of other people around who are like me dwindled to zero, and really the only players left were players who have the same preferences as yours, and so either I stick around and do things for them, or they fizzle out because none of them are doing any of the things I used to do. And here’s the rub, at least for me: they won’t listen when I try to explain or discuss these things, because it always runs into the same wall of preference, i.e. “I like it this way, so…”
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to attack either you or your preferences, and I’m certainly not trying to ask you to account for other people. I’m not even a plot-exclusive player, really. I enjoy social RP myself too. So I’m not trying to feed you some WrongFun theory, just that as someone who wants to see a given game or community thrive, I’ve come to be convinced of the necessity of having someone there actively driving things, in some way. Preferably staff, but if certain players have the gumption to do it themselves all the better. If not, then no matter how good the intentions, it’s been my experience that things fizzle, and then players who prefer social RP then have none either.
But, I also understand that some people are also attached to the idea of their RP freedom, so to speak, without staff oversight or having to surrender their RP to someone else’s plot. I don’t know if that’s how you feel about it too, but that’s definitely something I’ve heard.
So, really I’m just asking, from a player like me to a player like you, is there a happy medium to be found? Is there a way I can better appreciate your perspective, or a way to explain mine which might help bridge such a divide? I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
-
@RedRocket This speaks to my OSR D&D gaming heart.
@Tapewyrm You’ve got to have some crunch somewhere for the social RP fluff to be based on. How can we bemoan the ongoing war with the orcs, if there is no battles in the background? How can we gossip about the King divorcing the past Queen and marrying some nobody from a backwater house if that doesn’t happen? Meringue topped with marshmallow fluff topped with whipped cream is sweet but not very filling. You can’t make a good dessert with just that. You’ve got to have some substance under it all.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@Ominous For sure. That’s what I try to do. Or are you saying that’s a good to way to try to get it across?
-
@Ominous said in The 3-Month Players:
You’ve got to have some substance under it all.
I mean, yes it’s common (and also my personal preference), but you don’t -have- to. For example, I used to play on several Western games. There were those of us who wanted plot/adventure, but there were a LOT of players who were happily off on their own doing costume drama/soap opera stuff. People MU for all kinds of reasons.
Mostly these different playstyles can peacefully co-exist on the same game. I think it only becomes a challenge when you lose critical mass to sustain a type of RP (like to @Tapewyrm’s point, when you don’t have enough plot/adventure peeps to run or participate in the plots). I’m not sure a middle ground exists though, because they’re just looking for different things. You can’t force someone to engage with a style of play that doesn’t interest them.
-
@Faraday said in The 3-Month Players:
People MU for all kinds of reasons.
This. There’s no one magic bullet to MU success, 3 month or otherwise. It takes a number of things. There are a lot of things to be handled to address all the many reasons people join a game, some of them mutually exclusive. It is a delicate balancing act. Not everyone can do it. Not everyone wants to do it. Some people want to and can do it, but not forever.
A lot of the games that get trashed often handled all this better than others. People tend to focus on their complaints about a game without acknowledging all the things done right and the reasons games keep going strong for years, despite the problems. I’ve been guilty of this as well, especially when it has affected me personally, negatively, or unfairly.
But it doesn’t take away from the fact that running a successful game is a daunting feat, however one defines success.
-
@Faraday said in The 3-Month Players:
Mostly these different playstyles can peacefully co-exist on the same game. I think it only becomes a challenge when you lose critical mass to sustain a type of RP (like to @Tapewyrm’s point, when you don’t have enough plot/adventure peeps to run or participate in the plots).
It’s more in this case that unless someone runs something, there swiftly becomes no RP at all, because the more random RP fizzles out. Every time.
I have never not observed this to happen, although I’ll concede I have remained in a certain gaming niche for 25 years and only rarely explored outside of it, so of course ymmv.
-
I can only speak for myself and a select few like-minded players, but here’s my perspective on this topic: While I genuinely enjoy private roleplay and developing personal storylines with my RP partners, I’m certainly not opposed to staff-run plots. They add depth and context to the world we’re playing in—I just don’t require them as my primary source of enjoyment.
Being a storyteller and plot-runner is undoubtedly a thankless job, which is why I try to make staff members’ lives easier when possible. My expectations are actually quite modest: run perhaps one scene a week to keep the world moving forward, and I’m perfectly content! I’ll happily fill in the other days with my own character-driven stories alongside my RP partners.
In my experience, most active and engaged players share this mindset. What I’ve consistently observed over years of roleplaying is that the very people who complain “there’s nothing to do” on a game are typically the same ones who rarely attend planned scenes when they are offered. They’re waiting for entertainment rather than creating it.
I believe there’s a productive middle ground here. Setting reasonable guidelines for sandbox RP so players don’t inadvertently break ongoing plots seems entirely fair. This doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. If you provide people with the tools and framework to tell their own stories—including clear boundaries about what limits they must respect—I strongly believe those same players will show up for staff-run scenes as well, appreciating the broader context they provide.
The most successful RP environments I’ve experienced have this balance: staff who create a vibrant, evolving world with occasional significant events, and players who feel empowered to develop their own stories within that framework. Neither needs to exclude the other, and both contribute to a richer overall experience.
-
@Raistlin Thank you for the reply, and that does indeed give me a good insight. Perhaps that same balance of periodic Plot scenes with character-driven play in between could be a winning combination. I shall try.
Thanks for sharing.
-
@Tapewyrm said in The 3-Month Players:
Perhaps that same balance of periodic Plot scenes with character-driven play in between could be a winning combination. I shall try.
To make a metaphor out of it, sort of, how I view it is thus: John Wick cares about his wife, and his dog. That character development, that relationship/emotion-driven play gives us much more investment and interest in the plot-driven stuff of the rest of the film than if it was just a regular"retired killer comes out of retirement for one. more. job." So the social RP isn’t just acceptable, it’s required to make the plot RP have any kind of investment.
-
@Tapewyrm said in The 3-Month Players:
It’s more in this case that unless someone runs something, there swiftly becomes no RP at all, because the more random RP fizzles out. Every time.
I have never not observed this to happen, although I’ll concede I have remained in a certain gaming niche for 25 years and only rarely explored outside of it, so of course ymmv.
I won’t dispute your experience, but it is different than mine. On games that I’ve run, it is usually the “primarily social” RPers who are the last ones still lingering when I turn the lights off. In fact, several times they’ve spun off to other games to keep their personal stories going or KEPT PLAYING on a sandbox even after the game ended.
Don’t get me wrong - I think a majority of MU players DO expect to be entertained, and will get bored if the entertainment dries up or does not meet their expectations. I’m just challenging the assertion that this is some kind of universal requirement.
-
@Faraday And I can appreciate that. In many ways I’m sheltered, since I’ve stuck on mostly the same place for decades, so I’m not trying to lay down some universal principles. In fact I come in search of wisdom from the wider MU verse.
See, the game I play on is still running, and has been since 1991, although from around 2013 it’s been pretty much dead, aside from my recent efforts to revive it. But the way the game worked was that there were essentially a dozen or more mini-games within the whole; it’s set in Middle-earth so each realm had their own sphere, or +culture as we called them (e.g. Gondor, the Shire, Isengard, Lothlorien), which had its own staff, grid, local theme and was largely autonomous.
So my own experience is based on watching the rise and fall of various ‘games’ within that, and getting the chance to try my own as local staff. If I may say so myself, I was typically rather successful in my projects, because I had learned from great staffers around and above me, and once upon a time I waded into the depths of WORA to discover how large and varied the MU verse was, and took some valuable insights with me back which served me well. It’s from that vantage that I keep seeing everything fizzle whenever someone stops providing the fun for others.
So, I guess, I’m back.
My problem isn’t getting things going. I’m always good at that, and while I’m doing it, everyone involved seems to have fun. My problem is that I’m always doing this largely by myself, and what I want most, desperately sometimes, is some help to avoid burnout (and is the reason I left in the end around 2012). Someone to help shoulder the load of driving things, so that the more social (or simply unplanned) RP can also take place and have a contextual background to it to inspire scenes.
However, I have found great difficulty over the years, and especially since a certain conventional wisdom set in for the other people in staffing positions that random/social RP is better than plots, in getting those players to even understand where I am coming from, let alone actually find a way we can cooperate and make everyone happy. Because I perceive that my way keeps working, and the other way keeps fizzling, I can’t help but feel they’re being selfish and counter-productive, and I know that’s not fair to feel that way, but I see no end to the cycle.
That’s why I really wanted to hear Raistlin’s thoughts, because I’m not trying to blame other people for their preferences, or say they’re Wrong. I want to be able to reach, understand, and adequately staff for people, without clashing over this difference in preferences. There’s plenty of people for me to work with, like you say the social RPers who will be there forever but who lurk because there’s nothing really to join in with, but challenging the conventional wisdom is hard, and unless I do it, honestly things just don’t happen. For anyone, and that makes me sad, because as far as I am concerned we could all be having so much fun. I just want our game back, y’know?
Anyhow, not trying to hijack this thread for my own game. Just seeking feedback.
-
@Pavel said in The 3-Month Players:
To make a metaphor out of it, sort of, how I view it is thus: John Wick cares about his wife, and his dog. That character development, that relationship/emotion-driven play gives us much more investment and interest in the plot-driven stuff of the rest of the film than if it was just a regular"retired killer comes out of retirement for one. more. job." So the social RP isn’t just acceptable, it’s required to make the plot RP have any kind of investment.
I don’t know if I agree with that. At least as it has been put into a metaphor.
I see it more like this: If John Wick had simply gone to the gas station that day, and all that happened is he paid for his gas and went home, then there is no movie series at all. Something had to happen for there to be a story, and what happened was John Wick was assaulted by Theon Greyjoy and then his dog was killed.
I understand that his emotional investment in that is what makes it matter and resonate with the audience/players, but I don’t see that as something born of social RP. That’s a detail in his Bio.
I think the social RP comes in when players then either a) explore it with John Wick ICly, b) talk about it with others as IC news, or c) don’t care at all that it happened but are just stoked there are now active players to socially RP with because something happened.
But without the Event, what does the social RP by itself offer in terms of (other/new) player investment? If John Wick’s love for his wife and dog is the social RP, in the metaphor, then what story is being told if the wife never dies or if John is never attacked by the Russians? I’m not seeing much for anyone to come get involved with, and grow activity from.
Serious question, not just trying to contradict you.
