Online Game Structure

As an unrepentant gamer (and flustered staffer) on assorted online games, I have over time developed a sense of what sort of things make or break a good game.

Staff and Staff Ethics

The first responsibility of a competent staff is to realize that a game is looked after by the staff for the players, rather than a dictatorship of the players by the staff. Many things about a game are staff-determined, including the basic background of the game (henceforth referred to as 'canon'). On many games, even the canon is not entirely determined by the staff; many MU*s draw from published material to develop their worlds (such as published RPG material, or published science fiction/fantasy writings.) In such case, the canon is also a matter of staff caretaking, rather than staff determination. *

The maintenance of up-to-date player information in both IC and OOC realms is staff responsibility. This includes the publishing of IC events to those people who would be aware of them, * the maintenance of OOC reference files for IC information, and the updating and maintenance not only of softcoded commands, but the help files to make the players aware that such commands exist.

In the case of the existence of continuing published material (which is the case on games such as those based on Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, or games based on RPGs with continuing source information) it is the responsibility of the staff to determine which of these books are acceptable to canon, and, if newly published material is within canon and relevant to the game, to make at least salient points commonly available to players.

Staff should not take undue advantage of the status, as staff, to create characters. NPC characters generated by staff should be generated solely to further RP and development of the 'average' player. Similarly, staff-alt characters should either be considered NPC under the staff control, or be generated as starting-level characters with no perks or advantages given because of staff status. When staff characters hold powerful positions that were not attained ICly, or powerful characters who did not achieve their power via IC action, there will tend to be a resentment in the player base towards the staff, whether warranted or otherwise. *

Similarly, staff must avoid all appearance of favoritism. If a staffer has a 'favorite' area of the game, or sphere of the game, the staffer should have no control over that area, IC organization, etc. Checks and balances must be emplaced in a game or the staff will appear to the average player to be a coterie of those who seek to please the most powerful staffers. The options for the average player are to take sides against the powerful staffers and have their characters harmed by internecine squabbling, side with the powerful staffers and have their characters exalted, or avoid the situation, and possibly the game, altogether.

Characters and Character Generation

One of the ongoing concerns of both players and staff is the generation of characters. On very open-character generation games, all a character needs to wander out into the world is a name, a description, and a gender. On such games, there tends to be a relatively high density of relatively poorly described and developed characters with little chance, as written, of developing any interesting IC intereaction. These characters wander around and are a generalized nuisance to all concerned until they either develop a clue, get bored and leave, or find a cluster of similarly inclined people.

On slightly more strictly regulated games, with partially open or loosely applied character generation, some of this tendency is reduced; characters with special powers may be restricted to only those who can pass a test in character generation (like an entrance examination) or who pass a background approval process. Certain very open-character generation games (such as PernMUSH) have a stricter application process for any IC job other than menial, including apprenticeship to a craft and application for availability for Search (to become a dragonrider).

Such applications are carefully vetted for grammar, coherence and compatability with canon, readability, and basic language skills. In the applications process there are stated requests that all applications be spell or grammar checked before submission, and that poor grammar is cause for an automatic rejection of the application. In the case of PernMUSH, the applicant's RP skill and ability is also evaluated before the character is granted IC position of authority, apprenticeship, etc.

Such precautions as this keep the number of people in positions of authority who have not developed the linguistic and RP skills to justify their placement to a minimum. It requires an active staff in the region under application, and to a certain extent will correct for the wide open character generation process. IC positions of authority should be and remain subject to availability, time constraints, and simple competence.

On a true applications-based game, the problems of the truly clueless are somewhat negated. The application process itself should weed out those characters without competent English skills, spelling abilities (mild levels of typoese excluded), or character concepts. These are the major sticking points between any character and the others around him; if there is no personality or concept there, or no competent grasp of the common language used, then there will be no enjoyable interaction on either side. Here, the staff is responsible for putting the interests of the majority of acting players - that being those who have developed, living characters - first, in encouraging a further development of such characters.

It is the responsbility of the player, of course, to develop these characters. If the game is in any way statistic-based, what in the character's background develops the statitics the character has? What have been the effects, unintended or otherwise, of those statistics? How does the character relate to the telling events of the canon? Has the character any particular personal quirks, likes, dislikes? What is the character's past history? Much of this will develop over the course of a character's life as he is played, as situations put the character into new thought patterns; a certain basic concept of outlook, however, is a fundamental of good RP. *

One of the longest-standing problems with the generation of characters in general is the development of collections of so-called twinks. The most prevalent and annoying species of twink are the sex twink and the combat twink. The former have powers (or simply impressive sex appeal) which are solely designed for dragging other characters off into RPed sex situations. The other is designed solely around fighting, with the associated consequences of maiming, killing, or otherwise mangling other characters. Both of these character types can be picked out on statistic-based games with moderate accuracy, and should be given serious staff consideration before approval (in my opinion). *

Actions and Consequences

One of the most telling points on a game is the concept of consent and consequences. Obviously, no player (make that very few players) actually want their characters to die (as the most drastic example). However, certain character actions can and will have their consequences.

Some games have a very strict set of consequence rules, basically termed "In Character Actions = In Character Consequences", or ICA=ICC. For example, on many World of Darkness games, revealing your supernatural status is an automatic consent to all consequences, up to and including death. Similarly, characters in positions of authority who regularly abuse their authority should be considered subject to the actions of rebellion, resentment, or outright removal from their offices.

It is generally deemed polite to allow a player a chance to back out of a situation which might result in character death or other problems. (Such as a paged, "Do you really want to walk into this gunfight?") However, when a character has provoked a response, a character cannot non-consent to the consequences of that action. *

To a certain extent, consent rules are modified somewhat by any game where there are stated statistics. Strict consent was originally designed for games where there were no stats, and therefore a player cannot automatically assume an action successed. If a character can justify, in game-approved statistics, then one cannot non-consent that action without denying the fundamental principle behind those statistics. Other statistics can counteract that effect, it is certain, but the event may not be non-consented. To degenerate this far, however, reduces role-playing to roll-playing; this is a necessary evil of statistic-based games.

Plots and IC Events

One of the most important things for the ongoing growth and enjoyment of a game is the existence of in-character plot events. To a certain extent, these will happen without the existence of the adminstrative staff; characters will meet, develop contacts, make friends and enemies, and all of these things without the help of the staff. Staff characters and staff NPCs should be in place to help these events proceed.

However, more overarching events will require the assistance of the staff. There are several routes by which this may happen. A MU*, unlike a tabletop game, does not have the overlaid plot designed by the storyteller, and must therefore compensate for it in other ways.

First of all, the staff may conceive of a plot and events, and announce it to players. This is, in many ways, the least effective of all of the plot beginnings. Unless the staff characters and their allies, as well as staff-run events, can make the situation real to the everyday players, the sheer fact of inertia will kill the plot. Staff alts must make their concerns known to the everyday player - another reason that staff should often play a character on the 'everyday player' level - and staff-run events should require character interaction. An enemy lurking in the shadows will provoke no response if he does not do anything to threaten the player characters.

Secondly, a player may have an idea for something that staff could run. Not all player plots will require staff intervention, but in any plot where character risk is significant, the staff should have a hand; no player should have to be responsible for life-and-death situations involving other players. In such a case, the staff should be prompt to listen to the seeds of a player's plot idea, offer suggestions for its development, and then run events connected with it promptly.

In the best of all possible games, a player will start ad-libbing things about an established plot. If such a thing happens, the staff responsible for that plot should keep an eye on the player, correct any factual problems, and, if the player wants to run with it - run with it. Situations develop rapidly, and sometimes the unexpected can be a useful tool.

The best plot developments come from the interactions between players and staff. If players are generating large numbers of popular plot ideas, and keeping people active, then the players should be asked if they would like to continue to do so - as staff. This way, new blood keeps the staff active, connected to the player base, and the game alive.

For the note of the reader, these are the supposed qualifications under which I composed the above:

Footnotes and addenda:

  1. Staff needs to be aware that once the game is turned over to the players, the theme will mutate. Certainly, the canon can predispose the game to one side of a line or another, but in the end, it is the characters who will determine what happens, not the staff. Some staffs will have problems letting the characters live; this can lead to either mutations in the canon, which are not necessarily a bad thing, or staff 'punishing' characters and their players for not doing what staff wants, which is a bad thing. Back
  2. Some OOC reference of history for an online game is also a good thing to have, whether accessible through news files or web service. This can and should not only contain the background of the game before its opening, but major events within the game (generally, wide-ranging staff plots that might have an effect outside the game grid, plots involving high-level IC leadership, and events that might have affected local characters). Back
  3. It is true that staff will, as a whole, have more "powerful" or "leadership" characters than non-staff. it is also true that people will bitch about this. However, people would bitch about it anyway, and at least being careful about the acquisition of that power minimizes the complaint, and renders the complaint that remains to the "carping and whining" category. (There's nothing to prevent them existing, but at least one can keep them from being justified in existing.) Back
  4. There is a balance that needs to be struck between those people who start with very sketchy backgrounds (a few events, a basic outlook) and those who can write forty-page epic backgrounds before they play the character; the first type will often have dynamic, well-thought out characters who just don't happen to have every detail laid out in their backgrounds. There is a different between sparse and well-planned background and badly thought-out, undetailed background, and a good application reader should recognize or learn to recognize this. Back
  5. They'll happen anyway, but it's good to check. Back
  6. Sometimes you get a character who will back other characters into a corner. Certainly, if this guy consents to wahtever he's getting, he should get it - however, it is to be noted that while players are aware that certain of their characters may do mean, nasty ugly things, that doesn't mean they want them to. (Just because you threaten me until I would shoot you in character doesn't mean that I as a player want your character dead; my character will have to kill you, could you please not force my hand? Thanks.) Back