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: