Weekend, Games, and Some Counter-Rants
Need more long weekends. Was this was restful because it was three days long, or because it was one more day than usual (ie. would I get accustomed to three-day weekends)? Either way, I didn't do much. Finished repacking the books I moved and slept in some. Not exciting and sometimes even depressing, but restful. Of course, this morning sucked at work, but what can you do?
In WoW, we managed more success than expected. Still no druid staff drop from Staghelm for our second druid, but we beat Zon'ozz in Dragon Soul. I'm still not sure whether we improved any or it was a matter of blind luck with the "ball." I lean toward the latter. Hagara was a little confusing at points, but ultimately wasn't a problem for us. At least one person expressed a desire to hold the lock and progress, but I'm wary. I think Ultraxion is going to involve more wipes than the fight should simply because people won't press their encounter-specific button at the right time. There also needs to be an actual decision about how to handle having someone soak Hour of Twilights (I believe it is), and I've seen zero discussion on that so far. Blackthorn is just chaotic enough to give us trouble, though we can probably do it. Spine of Deathwing looks like a roadblock from my perspective, and Madness is only several times more complicated than that.
I've poked some more at Diablo 3, finishing Act I in Inferno. (edit: Wait, no... Nightmare! Why can't they name difficulties more intuitively?) The auction house (of with the real money version isn't even up yet) has ups and downs. The sorting is less than stellar, it lists sold items, it's been slow or not working at times... but I can sift through stuff there with a buyout cap of 2000 gold and find several solid upgrades every few levels.
And a couple rants (or counter-rants):
[On Alignments]
On Alignments
Sure, in reality, good and evil are all a matter of perception. I could say taken another's life is evil, but someone else might argue dozens of situations in which it isn't. Their opinion and mine on where the line is won't be the same, especially if we're from completely different cultures. And the same can be said for pretty much anything. There is no cosmic scale that says what is good and what is evil - at least not in any way I've been able to perceive.
But in a fantasy world, that isn't necessarily the case. If a spell like Detect Evil works, then there really is something that is evil in an absolute, objective sense. Either that, or it's really Detect Acts and Intents That I Would Find Objectionable - and if it's that subjective, it's pretty much meaningless. You may as well allow paladins to Smite anyone they don't like.
My advice: Either accept the "good and evil are real things" paradigm or don't bother with alignments at all. Trying to apply two different sets of "logic" is only going to foul things up more.
[On MUCKs and Play Styles]
On MUCKs and Play Styles
No, diving in with a roleplay character who wants to change the world and using all the rules at the player's disposal to do so is not inherently wrong.
But it can be a bad thing on a MUCK. For some definitions of "bad."
In a tabletop game, there's a GM there to adjust for any such ambition, or lack thereof. In my experience, gamer group dynamics will work themselves out - certain players may be more leaders, and some may just follow along and roll when needed. Heck, in my experience, plot is often driven by the GM's story rather than character motivations, but I understand there are groups that don't play that way. There's a certain social contract within the group, and usually players are not going to veer apart from expected behavior (whatever that may be) and wildly change the game from what everyone expects and is playing. Or if they do, there tends to be a correcting force in future games, where expectations change or people leave the group entirely.
A MUCK is more persistant, it involves more people, and there is often not the same level of GM involvement. There's all sorts of trickiness involved in that because there will be a wider range of expectations and wants. One thing that doesn't change is that players cause ripples, and sometimes other players won't like those ripples. Only now there's no GM always present to rein things in and try to find a balance. No, the players have to find that balance themselves, more often than not, and that's often a painful process.
So while using the rules are written (or lack thereof in some cases) to the utmost, a player is operating within the bounds of the rules, sure. But if they're disrupting the RP and expectations of other players along the way, they are at best being inconsiderate. Having Player A scare off anyone from ever running a mystery due to his character's divination powers is probably more a flaw of the system/setting in the first place, but it's not likely to win over any friends and it's bad for the MUCK as a whole because it makes people less inclined to even try run such plots. The same can be said for any ability - the more you convince people that character powers can not only overcome, but trivialize any particular sort of "challenge," the less people will bother trying to provide those challenges until pretty much no one runs anything. Similarly, if Character A is so ridiculously powerful as to accomplish any goal himself, player of Character B will start asking "well, why should I even try to participate in those plots?"
It's about the psychology behind it all, and recognizing that it's there for everyone. Quashing a fantasy threat soundly might make one player feel great, but if it happens in a way that makes half a dozen other players feel useless, that's probably a net loss of motivation for the entire MUCK. And it doesn't matter if any rules were broken.
So no, the problem is not "making the most of the rules." The problem is playing in such a way that demoralizes other players, making them feel useless. And that can actually be caused in a lot of different ways...
In WoW, we managed more success than expected. Still no druid staff drop from Staghelm for our second druid, but we beat Zon'ozz in Dragon Soul. I'm still not sure whether we improved any or it was a matter of blind luck with the "ball." I lean toward the latter. Hagara was a little confusing at points, but ultimately wasn't a problem for us. At least one person expressed a desire to hold the lock and progress, but I'm wary. I think Ultraxion is going to involve more wipes than the fight should simply because people won't press their encounter-specific button at the right time. There also needs to be an actual decision about how to handle having someone soak Hour of Twilights (I believe it is), and I've seen zero discussion on that so far. Blackthorn is just chaotic enough to give us trouble, though we can probably do it. Spine of Deathwing looks like a roadblock from my perspective, and Madness is only several times more complicated than that.
I've poked some more at Diablo 3, finishing Act I in Inferno. (edit: Wait, no... Nightmare! Why can't they name difficulties more intuitively?) The auction house (of with the real money version isn't even up yet) has ups and downs. The sorting is less than stellar, it lists sold items, it's been slow or not working at times... but I can sift through stuff there with a buyout cap of 2000 gold and find several solid upgrades every few levels.
And a couple rants (or counter-rants):
[On Alignments]
On Alignments
Sure, in reality, good and evil are all a matter of perception. I could say taken another's life is evil, but someone else might argue dozens of situations in which it isn't. Their opinion and mine on where the line is won't be the same, especially if we're from completely different cultures. And the same can be said for pretty much anything. There is no cosmic scale that says what is good and what is evil - at least not in any way I've been able to perceive.
But in a fantasy world, that isn't necessarily the case. If a spell like Detect Evil works, then there really is something that is evil in an absolute, objective sense. Either that, or it's really Detect Acts and Intents That I Would Find Objectionable - and if it's that subjective, it's pretty much meaningless. You may as well allow paladins to Smite anyone they don't like.
My advice: Either accept the "good and evil are real things" paradigm or don't bother with alignments at all. Trying to apply two different sets of "logic" is only going to foul things up more.
[On MUCKs and Play Styles]
On MUCKs and Play Styles
No, diving in with a roleplay character who wants to change the world and using all the rules at the player's disposal to do so is not inherently wrong.
But it can be a bad thing on a MUCK. For some definitions of "bad."
In a tabletop game, there's a GM there to adjust for any such ambition, or lack thereof. In my experience, gamer group dynamics will work themselves out - certain players may be more leaders, and some may just follow along and roll when needed. Heck, in my experience, plot is often driven by the GM's story rather than character motivations, but I understand there are groups that don't play that way. There's a certain social contract within the group, and usually players are not going to veer apart from expected behavior (whatever that may be) and wildly change the game from what everyone expects and is playing. Or if they do, there tends to be a correcting force in future games, where expectations change or people leave the group entirely.
A MUCK is more persistant, it involves more people, and there is often not the same level of GM involvement. There's all sorts of trickiness involved in that because there will be a wider range of expectations and wants. One thing that doesn't change is that players cause ripples, and sometimes other players won't like those ripples. Only now there's no GM always present to rein things in and try to find a balance. No, the players have to find that balance themselves, more often than not, and that's often a painful process.
So while using the rules are written (or lack thereof in some cases) to the utmost, a player is operating within the bounds of the rules, sure. But if they're disrupting the RP and expectations of other players along the way, they are at best being inconsiderate. Having Player A scare off anyone from ever running a mystery due to his character's divination powers is probably more a flaw of the system/setting in the first place, but it's not likely to win over any friends and it's bad for the MUCK as a whole because it makes people less inclined to even try run such plots. The same can be said for any ability - the more you convince people that character powers can not only overcome, but trivialize any particular sort of "challenge," the less people will bother trying to provide those challenges until pretty much no one runs anything. Similarly, if Character A is so ridiculously powerful as to accomplish any goal himself, player of Character B will start asking "well, why should I even try to participate in those plots?"
It's about the psychology behind it all, and recognizing that it's there for everyone. Quashing a fantasy threat soundly might make one player feel great, but if it happens in a way that makes half a dozen other players feel useless, that's probably a net loss of motivation for the entire MUCK. And it doesn't matter if any rules were broken.
So no, the problem is not "making the most of the rules." The problem is playing in such a way that demoralizes other players, making them feel useless. And that can actually be caused in a lot of different ways...