Your opinion on other players

Selveem · Post by **Selveem** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:56 pm

Hmm, well as it appears many people oppose this 'feature' I do agree it shouldn't "unlock" anything to players.

I do, however, greatly appreciate input on the way I play and what other players would like to see to help make their time more enjoyable. I will truly take it into consideration and if it is within the scope of my character I may institute the requests.

My contact information is listed in my account - if you choose to add me to AIM, please PM me and let me know who you are and what SN will be adding me (I have non-listers blocked).

I don't mind criticism. Regardless of whether anyone admits to it or not, we all criticize each other's RP. Perhaps not vocally (as often this would be offensive), but definately privately in our own minds.

Any questions or concerns with any of my characters, I would gladly meet and make time for anyone ICly so long as they are not simply staging the RP to be obnoxious and taunting.

Ninde · Post by **Ninde** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:42 pm

I didn't have time to write them in a more explanatory way, and apologize.

First, I am still on not to rate on someone elses roleplay. Because everyone playing in the game is here..for the fun. We are not in a high school exam, or worse, we are not to have boundries on..roleplaying game.

I,personally, can think that this roleplayer sucks because bla bla.But..That will be my opinion. What if other PC makes something that very true to his/her roleplay, and you think it doesn't have its place in the game? What if that is commonly right, but only *I* think otherwise?
I do not think we, players are the judge of others. If we think it is a huge mistake, we have osay and otell commands to discuss it. Perhaps we can find out what is the real reason of that roleplay.

There are many IC and OOC ways to discuss about some kind of roleplay. Talking of Ninde, my main alt, she has been into alot of roleplay of "elven life/traits/customs" roleplay, and she tried to teach a bit here and there ICly, not even with using OOC channels. I cannot decide if she succeeded or not, but there was a try.

And, how actually imms will prevent that, when that option totally relies on subjective terms?. I can see an IMer talk, "Dude, I need to get *uberswordofdoom* with my rating points, and I will get it if one more person is giving me a high point." And the friend of course will find a way and show off an example that the player needs a good rating point for bla roleplay.
Who will say "I don't think that point worths that rate" from that point? It is too much of a subjective thing, as I said, and I find it wrong to put on some boundries in a roleplaying game.

Selveem · Post by **Selveem** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:56 pm

Oh, absolutely.

I'm definately agreeing that having high 'rating' should not 'unlock' special areas/items/quests in the game.

I think it should only be used by players looking to increase their ability to roleplay better. IE: be more cognizant that their wyvern mount should not be inside an inn with them while they buy bread.

Hypothetical situation: (Caveat: Hypothetical!)
For instance, let's say the High Priest of Cyric has questions regarding the way I've been roleplaying <insert non-existant Cyric follower> when I go out killing every single mob in WD. He does not feel my character should be sacking an entire city with a raiding party to 'promote fear' and the like.

I could then make preparations to meet with them ICly to discuss said actions (OMG, I find out he plays the Imm as well! [Please remember: hypothetical. I do not claim to know who plays what]). I explain my character was recently involved in an RP where he was falsly accused of attacking the church of Mystra. The Watch and several citizens had me face down, flogging me and publicly humiliating me, etc, whatever.

Now, instead of the normal course: Damned by your God, hunted by his church for causing more problems for other faith members due to my actions...

Instead: Cyric blesses me for causing more strife, I have the backing of my church since a terrible injustice was forced upon me, etc.

Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but I think there is plenty of uses for said system. Especially when many people do not have my contact information or are rarely on the game.

Aliatris · Post by **Aliatris** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:29 pm

Selveem wrote: Now, instead of the normal course: Damned by your God, hunted by his church for causing more problems for other faith members due to my actions...

I'm very sure that your high faith manager, will investigate the facts before claming your blood without thinking about it.

There is NO need to explain to someone by OOC means something that you can do IC.

If you are new to a determinate kind of RP, for example you have never roleplayed a moon elf, I think that is FAR more interesting speaking with others elves and learn about them and their culture IC and UNDERSTANDING it instead of acting like an automaton with the advices you get without thinking too much about it, just RP in what is thought like a good way of RP.

Regarding to disruptive RP; if you think that the character is doing something that no benefits anyone and causes several problems to others players, or simply systematically brokes a RP atmosphere asking for spells or other behavior similar, there is nothing like an OOC conversation via tell, so he can explain himself if he wants and you both can have a dialogue about it

Selveem · Post by **Selveem** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:19 am

Actually, I hate to tell you you're wrong, but you're wrong. This is not always the case and I have been in RPs where facts were not researched nor Otells exchanged by player/Imm before RPs were played out and a player was victimized due to OOC misunderstanding of IC events.

Also, I made no statement of talking to anyone regarding my characters OOC. Please re-read my statement: Any questions or concerns with any of my characters, I would gladly meet and make time for anyone ICly so long as they are not simply staging the RP to be obnoxious and taunting.

Tavik · Post by **Tavik** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:58 am

Aliatris- I agree that it might be interesting to learn how to RP a moon elf IC, but that sort of situation isn't IC at all. Why wouldn't a moon elf know how to act like a moon elf? That just doesn't make sense. Generally, when I start that sort of RP, I do OOC research first and then ask others OOC questions about how to RP it because I just can't see my dwarf taking lessons from another dwarf on how to act like a dwarf.

Getting back to how this would relate to the system being discussed, you aren't rating RP itself, you're rating the particular player's ability to roleplay that character.

Dalvyn wrote: The rating would indicate how well the player plays this character. Let me try to give some example.

Example A. Character barges into the square, does not mind that a bard is currently performing and immediately asks, 'I need a fly spell.' Or 'Anyone wanna go kill stuff?'. This kind of thing would deserve a negative rating.

Example B. The character roleplays consistently. As an elf-hating dwarf, or as a very unwise half-orc fighter, or as a know-it-all mage, ... After roleplaying with them several times, you think something like "This player really brings his character to existence. That's a fully 3D character." and you give a positive rating.

Example C. The character makes a joke or says a witty answer. I have seen people use "reward" in this case... The roleplay rating would not intervene in this case, unless perhaps if the joker or witty answer is very in-character for that person.

Example D. You and your opponent roleplay a pkill. You have a fair OOC discussion to agree on whether the fight should be stun or spar or whatever, you and your opponent exchange good words and you think that the whole fight was well roleplayed and OOCly fair. You choose to rate positively your opponent.

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:42 am

Hmm,

I cant seem to tell if there are more people for it or against it.

Dalvyn, perhaps you could set up a poll?

A. I like it completely.

B. I dislike it completely.

C. I like it, but it shouldnt unlock new features.

D. I dont care either way.

Just a suggestion

Thanks,

Dalvyn · Post by **Dalvyn** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:48 am

Regarding the "unlocking" of things with a high rating. That's actually mostly the point for it.

Those who have read previous threads by me know most likely where I am aiming at with this, but for those who have not ...

It starts from a very simple observation I have made when trying to set up roleplays. When the time comes to determine what player should I try and include in a roleplay, I choose the following answer: those who would make it so that the largest number of players will benefit in the end. That means: let's avoid glory hogger who will try and "solve" the roleplay all by themselves, even to the point of - voluntarily or not - pushing others out of the roleplay; let's take in those who take the time to spread information so that others can join in the roleplay; let's avoid those who will just get impatient and want to know what mob/PC to bash and will not take any time to think on the situation first; and so on. When I set up roleplays, I do that to hopefully make people enjoy themselves... so it makes sense that I would choose to include first people who will help me achieve that, and who will help others enjoy themselves as well.

And often, I find that those characters that I would really like to involve in the roleplay, because they will be an asset to take along and will help more people have fun, ... very often, I find that those characters kind of suck from a technical point of view. Those characters who are more oriented towards making more people than just themselves have fun often spend most of their time interacting with others than bashing mobs/training/questing.

So, naturally, I have tried to set up several options that would allow those people - who more or less suck skill-wise - to still do what they do most of the time while they are online (i.e., generally sharing information, interacting, roleplaying, helping newbies and not-so-newbies, creating roleplays for others, ...) while offering options to not remain so low skill-wise.

One of the solution that came to mind was to grant those people skill points, that they could then freely use to increase their skills directly, without forcing them to take away time from their favourite activities in order to train those skills. Another solution consisted in allowing those people to train "more effectively", that is, in increasing their experience gain and skill improvement rates.

All those solutions though require one thing: they can only be applied once those people who "deserve" those advantages have been identified. They could be hand-picked by imms, but I can already hear the obfuscated shouts of "Favouritism" filling my ears. So, naturally, other ways to identify them have to be found...

One of the solutions I offered was to take into consideration the time online spent interacting with others (i.e., using smote/say/... with another PC). That was discarded because (I think) some imms thought that it would reward those who just chill out on the Market Square and chat nonsensically all day long (while the goal was actually to capture any kind of interaction). So, the idea is to try and come up with other ways to "identify" those people who would deserve this kind of reward/advantage.

And the "rating" system was suggested as a way to do just that. The base idea was, I think, that, since everybody could rate everybody, favouritism would play no big part in it and the rating would be "fair". (Of course, there would be protections included in the system so that cliques aren't advantaged but, as I pointed out above, those will be in and are not part of the topic here... let's see if the idea of the system would work first if used fairly, before considering loopholes).

So... there you have it. The goal of this system would naturally be to attach it to some kind of "rewards". If it was only about giving advice to other players, well, we wouldn't need it: you can already do so with otell/osay.

Aliatris · Post by **Aliatris** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:02 am

Maybe it could be possible having different aspects of a character to be rewarded and each one could give different benefits, leaving commentaries to OOC channels if you have the need of them.

Enough rewards to Joe in the category "race" could allow him to play more exotic races, while other category if high enough could give other benefits, this way is eliminated the necessity of rating other player RP as bad, and those who deserve it eventually will get something for their continual effort in RP aspects

Raona · Post by **Raona** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:37 am

I'll point out that in the absence of a player-derived rating system, Imms will have no option but (to continue) to base their decisions on their own opinions of a players' RP. While I think this works swell, it is open to the cries of favouratism that Dalvyn mentioned, and it also disadvantages new players with good RP and "sharing" skills, since the Imms may not get to know (of) them for a good while.

I personally don't see the current system as broken, but would ask if those who feel
A) The Imms play favourites
B) ICly-appropriate good RPers are left out of organized RP's (because the Imms don't know who they are or appreciate their RP)
C) There is not enough constructive criticism of RP offered in the game
might do better under this new proposal. I'm not asking you to identify yourself as adhering to any of these three ideas, though I have heard each of them uttered on more than one occasion - rarely with rancor, but often with resignation and/or despair...especially (B) from long-term players who have never been involved in a major RP. But do you think folks with one or more of these frustrations would be better served by the proposed system? ...and if so, do the potential advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Lysha · Post by **Lysha** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:30 pm

Personally, how about an option to have this optional? Sort of like tuning the amulets, one could either accept ratings or not.

In my opinion, if we do have the rating system, there should be options.

Option one: Will you partake in the rating system?

Option two: Would you like to see comments left by others?

Option three: Would you like to see your rating easily?

Now, I agree that there should be some checks and balances, and I liked Solaghar's ideas. I see it more as one person can only rate you five times in a rolling three month period. The time and amount can always be changed to better suit something else, but this is what I came up with.

I do, however, think that there needs to be comments attached to a rating, and IMMs can look at these and throw out bogus comments, like...
'I hate your character's RP because you have a cow! Who has a cow?'
or
'I think your hair is stupid. No one looks that old when they are that age.'
(just using Lysha as an example)

Any thoughts? Maybe I over looked something, but there should be options. (That was my main point)

Rhianon · Post by **Rhianon** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:10 am

No I would not rate others RP. If we do not like the way someone is RPing then we don't have to RP with them. This is a GAME, and not everyone has a need to complete/do their character/characters the way others think they should. This is not an acting school, or a journalism school, or a school for budding writers, it is a game and as such should be handled so that any who wish to visit and join in should not feel as if they are being graded on how they RP or handle their character. Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings, but why can't we just let people play for the fun of it and quit making it into a contest?

Meekir · Post by **Meekir** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:55 am

Ehe... ok, responding to Dalvyn's main purpose in this proposal, and at the risk of playing devil's advocate, I think good roleplayers should be rewarded. with stuff. and unlocking things. I think, after hearing Dalvyn clarify, a player rating system could be a better way to do that.

hear me out.

the way "kismet" works now, you don't neccessarily have to contribute to RP in any way to unlock things like rare races - you could just as easily spend hundreds of hours online by yourself. if players made a habit of applying positive ratings to everyone at the end of a good story or roleplay, we'd have a much better representation of how well and how often players contribute to group roleplays. it would encourage people to form groups (and create group-friendly characters) and try to add to people having a good time, in a way that nothing else really does, mechanically. if that's the idea of the game, we should embrace ways to encourage and reward good roleplay and pc interaction.

this sounds to me a lot like player nominations for roleplay awards in other games. you get a little something extra for making the game enjoyable for other people. I like the idea.

Llewis

Ceara · Post by **Ceara** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:59 am

What about for those people that rp well all the time and almost never get rewarded?

Raona · Post by **Raona** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:47 pm

Ceara wrote:What about for those people that rp well all the time and almost never get rewarded?

I'm walking on eggshells asking this, but...is this something suffered by evil characters? Or certain styles of RP? Or is it the result of cliques? I don't immediately see how someone doing a great RP job wouldn't be noticed and rewarded.

I certainly interact with goodies more than baddies, and so have rewarded more "good" player RP than evil. But in ratio to the time of interaction, I have certainly rewarded evils more than goods....and some of my most heartfelt REWARDs have gone to evils who scared the willies out of me. (Someday I'll get the tale of Raona and Faustus into a book...)

I do see evils in less of a position to help new characters just starting out...but that's not something that often garners REWARDs, though I think the Imms do tend to notice if you do it.

Nasrialle · Post by **Nasrialle** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:42 pm

Based on what I have seen on other muds with systems permitting players to rate each other it is generally a bad idea. While IMMs work hard not to play favorites and usually do a good job at it, players are far less inclined to be fair. I have seen players that create a character violating rules and going 100% against race/class/faith lore receive massive amounts of high ratings form other players just because of who is at the keyboard. Just the same I have seen other players given low ratings just because of who they are, while newbies also received low ratings for being to new to possibly be any good. It could also mean that a player who has an off day because he's sick, his dog died, or whatever may receive a bad rating even though that day he was nothing like his usual self with good reason.

Having a rating system that unlocks rewards for people who put a lot of time and effort in to being exceptional could be really nice. I don't think it should be left up to players though. While a smaller player base is more likely to be trustworthy the more players there are the more potential there is for trouble. It could ultimately just leave the staff with even more to supervise. Perhaps a rating system could still be used to reward highly rated characters, but I do not think it should be players rating players. I for one would never use it just because I don't know anybody or this system well enough yet to know when people are having a normal day or not.

Lukon · Post by **Lukon** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:25 pm

I'm going to toss in my two cents, mainly because I love stirring the pot much more than noble little Lukon himself.

While I would favor comments on my RP for many of my characters, there are some people who are just plain inimical to certain RP styles. Amalia's example, of finding many RPs melodramatic or droll would fit into this category. Some people may be of a more stoic RP school, while others may get their fun from gushing odiously at every slight. But is it bad RP, or just aimed at a different audience?

So, while I think comments would be interesting, there ARE real OOC debates of what good RP 'is', and that doesn't even go into the clique issues, which will further exacerbate issues.

Tavik · Post by **Tavik** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:39 pm

Wow...I'm really surprised at people's lack of faith in the integrity of others. Apparently, I've been lucky enough not to run into any of these people and as such I thank those I RP with who do give me reason to believe our players are trustworthy and honest. If there are as many people of ill content as seems to be indicated here, then I guess I would have to say that no, this system will probably not work.

As far as the intentions of said system, it looks to me like the IMMs are looking for a better way to gather input on specific players for the purposes of accepting and declining applications and the like. That said, I would guess that at the moment when a player send in for an application, they take the time to watch that player and see how they roleplay and whether or not they are deserving of having that application accepted. The proposed system would aleviate a lot of that duty freeing the vastly overworked IMMs up a smidge. Isn't that fair to them? Besides, if you don't trust another player, why would you trust an IMM? (No offense to the IMMs here and I do mean that) I've personally had an IMM point out to me that they are human as well and as such can be bias based on what they've seen from players. Do I have a problem with this? Not in the least. I can't claim any better so I don't expect anything out of others that I can do myself. The point is, by getting other players inputs these decisions are not made by single person. It seems more like a jury. Plus, it will help eliminate the favoratism myth running around because you won't be able to claim that IMM X denied your application because they didn't like you. Think of the IMMs here.

All that said, I don't know if everything I've said here regarding IMM procedure on things is accurate so I am not claiming it to be rock solid truth. Furthermore, I realise that some of what I've said here might be viewed as offensive or flaming. This was not my intention at all, I just couldn't think of any other way to put it.

Nedylene · Post by **Nedylene** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:59 pm

I still don't agree with the whole system. How can you as a player judge if a person is playing their character and giving them justice? How can you be sure you KNOW the character? How do you know that happy go lucky Jane isn't really a Sharite spy in disguise? How do you know that the wench who has a reputation for going through men isn't really a fortune teller who simply gives advice in private? How can a player be expected to know what character is before them without knowing their hidden depths.

It is too judgemental, too opinionated and can generate bad bad fires. Create a system like this for imms to use only. Or one for imms and Player council to use as Player Council is suppose to be the ones that help out, answer questions, guide etc. Don't give it to every Dick and Harry and expect it to work without generating animosity. Do not let the players know what their rating is. Keep it private, keep it behind the scenes and only let the people who CAN be ambiguous use it. Or give it to noone. I would hate to see cliques developing and favoritism developing.

Tavik · Post by **Tavik** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:48 pm

It appears that others are looking at this differently than I am. I keep refering to Dalvyn's given examples. I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that interrupting a bard's song just so they can get a spell or something is bad RP. I think that everyone can agree that an elf constantly RPing as hating orcs is good RP. I didn't think we would be rating the intricate details of a character's background. I've been beatin this (apparently dead) horse for a while and I will continue to do so here. If everyone would stick to the type of things Dalvyn pointed out your rating will reflect what the community thinks of you and not just your clique and those that hate you. I'm constantly aware that some characters are not who they appear to be (mostly because I play one of those) and as such I don't judge a character on sudden drastic changes in their RP. I judge on things like back knowlege of the race/class, ignoring RP of others, purposely avoiding RP, RPing outside of class (i.e. a priest of Ilmater torturing a commoner), bringing others into RPs, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Dalvyn, but that is the sort of things you intended to be rated, right? How is rating those sorts of things a contest or judgement?