Sir Daren
Lenfald
Training men and looking for work
Posts: 260
|
Post by Sir Daren on Jan 5, 2018 22:26:58 GMT -8
Here are some long thoughts, please do me the honor of reading and considering: LoR is a well developed land in which to create characters and their stories. Alas, it is merely where our characters can coexist, as the Global Storyline is fueled by timely participation in the GCs. For fairness our characters can't directly affect the GS without KC permission. When a player makes large time-consuming builds, they don't usually affect the story line unless it falls within a GC category, and then only point wise. Currently, the GS is affected by player participation AND quality in the GCs. Why not have the GS affected by player involvement and stories at all times? To me it makes sense if someone dedicates hours of work and dozens of quality builds that they should have greater affect on the game as a whole. Example: a player in Loreos fleshes out a city, builds a few different warships, and creates an epic battle scene: they could claim land, affect an enemy faction's economy, etc.. However: if 5 builders in the enemy faction collectively build as much (one player builds 1 ship + part of a city, another player makes a shipyard, someone else a battle, etc). then the faction power and story influence would stay balanced. There could be "Special Events" which could focus all players on one spot temporarily for bonus points INSTEAD of being the only thing to affect GS. Example: gold discovered near the border; players challenged to show setting up a mining operation OR forcefully seizing a gold shipment, etc. (this way players can influence the game even if their character/builds wouldn't focus on the special event). Instead of the KC leading the storyline, they would be moderators who record points, clarify global status, resolve disputes, etc., thus allowing the game speed to continue at the pace of the players. A while back was "The North Is Rising". I would have loved for Garheim to pull some awesome move when all of the Garheim players were geared up, instead of them having to wait for the GC (I still dont know what that event was about, and would love to know). Because of RL, I have limited build time, and when I do get to build I want my build to count whether or not its finish coincides with a GC category or time allotment. The above idea also would enable more interaction between players and their storyline effects, something that would be cool. Final small thought: I look forward to war, as that is a major part of Lego Castle for me. Thank you for reading this huge text!
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 6, 2018 3:49:10 GMT -8
Cuahchic You know, I think a system like Die Nein Reiche, would actually get me interested again. Just so we are all on the same page, what specific aspects of Die Neun Reiche appeal to you? As a matter of fact, I have also been following the nine kingdoms group. I'm not sure how I feel about their turn-based roleplay but I love the fact that the players directly influence the global events and storyline without relying on leaders to shape the events around them, basically playing how they want to play. However, I couldn't really get my head around the whole resource and building points system. Also just out of curiosity but what are other peoples view about having LoR start with a fresh slate to get people back into it? Hi all, I've been following this conversation but have been away the last couple of days and haven't had a chance to comment. I totally get the lack of enthusiasm many of you have expressed. If I am honest, I too feel this way, which is why I have mostly channelled my reduced Lego time into BoBS, which is much more active and interactive. The trouble is, well at least for me, the more people participate in the RPG, the more motivated I am to participate. From my experience in BoBS, I tried to introduce a more game based mechanic with the colonisation challenge, but without the settlement levels meaning much, they don't provide much of an incentive to actually play. I think to keep LoR going, we need a major overhaul, but that would require a level of motivation and participation that I just don't think we have at the moment. Also I think we need to pretty much scrap the new world - LoR is a castle game. I think that by re-focusing on the mainland (which was our plan btw) and refocusing on rebuilding the main factions, we could probably drum up more interest. The other major problem is that the game is too focused on a central storyline controlled by the King's Council, and as many of you have noted, we are not very active ourselves. If we could re-invigorate the factions, and re-focus on individuals telling their own character driven storylines, encouraging collaboration between individuals, I feel that would work better than relaying on a centrally driven storyline controlled by the select few... As for the current storyline, the next instalment has been about ninety percent ready for at least 2-3 months, but RL has prevented the key story drivers from finishing it - another reason why I think we need to move away from a strict centrally controlled storyline. If you want to revive LoR, or just build some cool castle in the LoR world (which I think is definitely worth preserving) I would suggest not waiting for the GC or even LC. Join a guild and progress your character. Maybe do a collaborative storyline with another builder (eg a Lenfel and a Garhim join up to search for a mythical lost dwarf mine filled with gold or whatever) The more builds start to populate the forum and flesh out the world, the more I believe participation will build. Anyway that's just my two cents. Discussion like this is great however, because we see that the forum is still alive, people are still here and want the game to continue in some way. On a personal note in a couple of weeks I will be separated from my Lego for an extended period of time. I plan on still being active in the community, but any builds will be digital until at least September at the earliest.... So I've been involved in or observed a number of these collaborative building games over the last few years, and here are some thoughts on them. Things I like: (L1) I love building LEGO and have loads of ideas that I get inspiration from. But sometimes it feels a bit stale building and posting to Flickr, given there has been a recent decline in the number of comments on MOCs (most interactions are "silent" faves). Collaborative building games give a much higher degree of interaction with other AFOLs.
(L2) It's amazing seeing a number of people collaborate to build a world together and it inspires me to build more.
(L3) When two players have reason to share a common story arc, it amplifies the effect of their builds. Just think how great it is in LoR when your character appears in the GC storyline?
(L4) When quality MOCs are displayed it pushes you harder to improve your own build quality.
Things I don't like: (DL1) These games are made or broken by the leadership team and how much time they can devote to it. Taking some examples, GoH had a very successful book 2 because SkaForHire devoted a huge amount of time to creating an interactive war game. LoR has died somewhat as there has been little leadership engagement in the last 6 months.
(DL2) Typically there is a large flurry activity in the first few weeks then when things get serious most players contribute nothing to the game [FYI - guilty as charged!].
(DL3) When they are open to the unwashed masses and anyone can join, there's always players coming in a random points, contributing one thing and then leaving again. This often unbalances factions or ends up with a load of poor quality MOCs. It also makes it difficult to keep track of participation level.
(DL4) Players who don't win global challenges can often find their contributions mean little to the overall storyline, thus discouraging participation.
(DL5) If you can't build regularly [FYI - guilty as charged!] then the level of social interaction is often very shallow as other players can't really engage with your characters story arc. It ends up being quite superficial and little different from posting random MOCs to Flickr.
At present, BoBS is the only collaborative building game with a high degree of participation. My slight gripe with this is that it's difficult to get into the game because of the existing lore created, I don't have time to read hundreds of old threads. I also find the whole licencing thing a bit difficult to understand. One solution I would give to the leadership issue, is to make the game more autonomous. I suggested this in the Andromeda's gate forum but if players posted MOCs in a specific post format it would be possible to scrape the information from the post and keep track of builds that way. If there were agreed rules on what MOCs meant this could result in an interactive game with minimal leadership micromanagement. The general consensus I get from this thread is that the current format of LoR needs reworked to encourage participation. I'll stick in a poll in the main thread to see what others think.
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 6, 2018 3:59:47 GMT -8
Here are some long thoughts, please do me the honor of reading and considering: LoR is a well developed land in which to create characters and their stories. Alas, it is merely where our characters can coexist, as the Global Storyline is fueled by timely participation in the GCs. For fairness our characters can't directly affect the GS without KC permission. When a player makes large time-consuming builds, they don't usually affect the story line unless it falls within a GC category, and then only point wise. Currently, the GS is affected by player participation AND quality in the GCs. Why not have the GS affected by player involvement and stories at all times? To me it makes sense if someone dedicates hours of work and dozens of quality builds that they should have greater affect on the game as a whole. Example: a player in Loreos fleshes out a city, builds a few different warships, and creates an epic battle scene: they could claim land, affect an enemy faction's economy, etc.. However: if 5 builders in the enemy faction collectively build as much (one player builds 1 ship + part of a city, another player makes a shipyard, someone else a battle, etc). then the faction power and story influence would stay balanced. There could be "Special Events" which could focus all players on one spot temporarily for bonus points INSTEAD of being the only thing to affect GS. Example: gold discovered near the border; players challenged to show setting up a mining operation OR forcefully seizing a gold shipment, etc. (this way players can influence the game even if their character/builds wouldn't focus on the special event). Instead of the KC leading the storyline, they would be moderators who record points, clarify global status, resolve disputes, etc., thus allowing the game speed to continue at the pace of the players. A while back was "The North Is Rising". I would have loved for Garheim to pull some awesome move when all of the Garheim players were geared up, instead of them having to wait for the GC (I still dont know what that event was about, and would love to know). Because of RL, I have limited build time, and when I do get to build I want my build to count whether or not its finish coincides with a GC category or time allotment. The above idea also would enable more interaction between players and their storyline effects, something that would be cool. Final small thought: I look forward to war, as that is a major part of Lego Castle for me. Thank you for reading this huge text! There's lots of really nice points in here. I like the idea of all builds being able to contribute to the overall storyline, but the issue is how do you allow faction interaction without everyone getting annoyed with "losing"? I think you still need a rules framework (i.e. factions can declare war and MOCs contribute towards the war score). I liked that Loreos and Garheim declared war on Lenfald and the Outlaws, but personally I think there's more you could do here to simulate a real war, such as pitched battles, sieges etc, so that castles and land really changes hands and thus there is more incentive to build. You need a level of maturity from the players though to prevent people quitting if they lose. (As an example, if any of you have played Crusader Kings 2, you need a cassus belli to declare war and this creates a specific war objective. Regardless of how much damage the war has done, at the end only the declared objective changes hands.) I agree that the momentum of events such as "The North Is Rising" is lost because there is no in game outlet for this, this is where agreed rules could result in a raid for resources etc. Once we see the results of the poll, I would be willing to create an initial rules framework which others could help flesh out if there is appetite for this. I disagree that moderators should be doing admin work - I think you will need some ability to arbitrate disputes - but the recording of MOCs, points, etc, could definitely be automated thus reducing the time required from any moderators. Finally, your statement " enable more interaction between players and their storyline effects" is definitely what I think collaborative building games need to sustain them in the long-term.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 6, 2018 8:22:51 GMT -8
I'm a fan of the idea that actions/building affects the Global Storyline, but only marginally i.e. one step at a time: "Faction A attacks Faction be at Location F to achieve Goal 1". Dynamic play like that would be a lot more engaging for a lot of players, myself included, but it would be best to be conservative about it; you don't want an entire faction to lose control of their country for a year real-time due to losing one challenge with no way to undo it or change it until the games creators say differently. Losing control of a town, city, mine, forest, dockyard, etc. either temporarily or permanently based on who holds it (who wins challenges for it) would be much more interesting. I also liked the idea of the Global Colonization builds, but I honestly never had much if any interest in the tropical isles; implementing such a system for our player cities and/or for main cities within our faction, however, sounds perfect. Each player could have his/her own player-controlled city that they have rights to and can build for, while their factions could have main cities that all faction members have rights to and can build for. Say Loreos wanted to beef up its defenses by building a wall: members could build for Local Challenges to gather material such as quarrying or purchasing stone by building mocs of their characters (or faction soldiers) doing so; enough material gathered and the faction goal they established can be carried out i.e. "X tons of Stone quarried = Y amount of Wall built". Then, Lenfald could decide they don't like that wall and want to tear it down, so they could declare War on whatever section of wall (city, town, single location) they choose, activating a War game; the two factions would build mocs to achieve set goals within the War, shifting the balance of control of said objective with each challenge met. The challenges could each feature Small (8x8), Medium (16x16), Large (24x24), and Unrestricted (32x32 or bigger) for the different subcategories of each challenge and members could build for each category multiple times to help achieve said goal, dependent on points earned from previous challenges i.e. "Player B earned 10 points from Local Challenges, so he can build X amount of entries using his points", or something along those lines. I've really enjoyed LoR and would like to see the game continue, but it seems change of some nature is necessary to keep it fresh and keep people interested. I like the idea of keeping the established lore as many of us have invested years into our current stories, but altering the geography might help; rearranging the three mainland factions so that each shares a border with the other two would make the game more dynamic and allow for each faction to have similar environments at the borders while maintaining their own unique topography towards the coast. It might even be prudent to move the Outlaws faction to the mainland, as well, and give them their own country; as it is now, Outlaws are ostracized and outcast and have always been made to be the defunct de facto defectors that aren't treated as being a real part of Roawia. A much faster-paced game that players can engage in at whatever speed they choose would probably be beneficial to us; participating would help each faction, but not participating wouldn't doom one faction while making another King of All. Factions would have to allocate their resources and work together to accomplish massive Global goals, which might in turn leave them open to attack from another faction; trying to conquer a city might cause you to lose a city of your own, but trying to take a town or a mine would be much easier. Control of mines and forests would grant factions access to X amount of resources that they can use to achieve Local Goals. I would probably build more often if there were achievable goals available to work towards at my own pace and my builds weren't always going to be going head-to-head with others; players could engage in single conquests, collaborative conquests, and competitive conquests depending on which they prefer at any given time. I'm glad to see so much interest from those who have commented and a willingness to move towards the future and keep the game going
|
|
Ember
Lenfald
Preparing for the wars to come
Posts: 57
|
Post by Ember on Jan 6, 2018 14:04:00 GMT -8
Ok, so I have put together a summary of what people want and the general consensus of things that need to change. If I've missed or misinterpreted anything just message me and I will edit this. If I've put a question mark after any statement it means I'm unsure if I have interpreted this right.
1) Switching the driving force of the GS from the KC to the players, allowing them to influence the storyline and play how they want. More interaction between players and their storyline effects.
2) Campaign map dynamics. Eg: territory switching sides, battles over resource locations
3) Possible scraping of the new world?
4) Better simulation of war. Eg: war objectives, territory only swaps hands if it was part of the initial objective and only that territory. This is seen in games such as Crusader Kings 2. However, measures must be put in place to stop factions losing control in the space of 1 real year, thus making it so players won't get annoyed.
5) A new system to be put in place to have to have balanced teams with active players.
6) player controlled cities and regions, much like feudal Europe.
7) A new point system? war and battle points for participation in war challenges?
8) A resource system similar to the 9 Kingdoms roleplay group? Control of these resource sites would go towards local goals. Eg: having X amount of resources would allow the faction to build a harbour, thus a local challenge would happen to build a harbour at X city?
Ok I think I've covered everything but if I've missed something just say and I will change it straight away
|
|
|
Post by Ayrlego on Jan 6, 2018 15:05:42 GMT -8
Great summary Ember, my thoughts on each of the below points in red. Ok, so I have put together a summary of what people want and the general consensus of things that need to change. If I've missed or misinterpreted anything just message me and I will edit this. If I've put a question mark after any statement it means I'm unsure if I have interpreted this right. 1) Switching the driving force of the GS from the KC to the players, allowing them to influence the storyline and play how they want. More interaction between players and their storyline effects. Easy said, harder to implement. I like the suggestion someone made above about the KC becoming more like moderators. I need to think on this more...2) Campaign map dynamics. Eg: territory switching sides, battles over resource locations I think this is too complicated to begin with. A new system should start simple and then possibly build up. 3) Possible scraping of the new world? Lets not scrap it, leave it to exists as described, but refocus on the mainland. We can also close the colonisation challenge if desired 4) Better simulation of war. Eg: war objectives, territory only swaps hands if it was part of the initial objective and only that territory. This is seen in games such as Crusader Kings 2. However, measures must be put in place to stop factions losing control in the space of 1 real year, thus making it so players won't get annoyed. Any war dynamics are going to have to be carefully thought out then beta tested on a small scale (possibly against an NPC faction or group) so we can ensure they are fair. 5) A new system to be put in place to have to have balanced teams with active players. Hard to do, don't think we've never tried. I even swapped sides to try and give some balance I think with a fief like system below this may be addressed somewhat???6) player controlled cities and regions, much like feudal Europe. I like this idea, but within existing factions. Ie if I'm a Loreesi player, I develop my own village up into a town, city etc using a resource/build system. The more buildings in my fief, the more powerful I become - this is exciting but needs some ground work to develop rules. 7) A new point system? war and battle points for participation in war challenges? same as point 48) A resource system similar to the 9 Kingdoms roleplay group? Control of these resource sites would go towards local goals. Eg: having X amount of resources would allow the faction to build a harbour, thus a local challenge would happen to build a harbour at X city? For me, this would be awesome. The Economic Game System (EGS) in BoBS is one of the best parts for me - although WARNING, it is hugely complicated and very intimidating for new players. We'd need to somehow keep the system relatively simple. Also the EGS in BoBS started off manual, and was WAY too much work for leadership. Now it is mostly automated due to the hard work of some of our members using Google forms. This level of technical detail is beyond me, but maybe we have some excel/Google forms experts here?Ok I think I've covered everything but if I've missed something just say and I will change it straight away I'll post some other thoughts in the poll thread
|
|
Merc
Garheim
Posts: 143
|
Post by Merc on Jan 6, 2018 18:40:20 GMT -8
While this discussion is going on I do want to say thank you to the leadership team that has spent time and effort into this RPG. This is a shout out to all the leadership both past and present.
I know that noone is meaning any disrespect for what the leadership team has done. I just think we need to not forget that people have put time into this game we all have enjoyed.
|
|
|
Post by Kingdomviewbricks on Jan 6, 2018 22:38:36 GMT -8
Thanks Merc, I appreciate that. There is a lot of work behind the scenes to keep this game running. I'm just glad to see the enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 7, 2018 3:49:27 GMT -8
While this discussion is going on I do want to say thank you to the leadership team that has spent time and effort into this RPG. This is a shout out to all the leadership both past and present. I know that noone is meaning any disrespect for what the leadership team has done. I just think we need to not forget that people have put time into this game we all have enjoyed. Hear, hear! I echo this sentiment! I hope my recent posts to rejuvenate LoR are seen as constructive and not having a dig at anyone! My only motivation for doing this is that I am in the enviable position of having more building time now and am looking for something to sink my time into. At the moment the only active collaborative building game is BoBS, but the time period is not particularly interesting (would prefer medieval) and it's almost the problem of it being too active - I can't keep up with all the simultaneous storylines!
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 7, 2018 4:20:29 GMT -8
Pasted from the Jibber Jabber Thread: I'm a fan of the idea that actions/building affects the Global Storyline, but only marginally i.e. one step at a time: "Faction A attacks Faction be at Location F to achieve Goal 1". Dynamic play like that would be a lot more engaging for a lot of players, myself included, but it would be best to be conservative about it; you don't want an entire faction to lose control of their country for a year real-time due to losing one challenge with no way to undo it or change it until the games creators say differently. Losing control of a town, city, mine, forest, dockyard, etc. either temporarily or permanently based on who holds it (who wins challenges for it) would be much more interesting. I also liked the idea of the Global Colonization builds, but I honestly never had much if any interest in the tropical isles; implementing such a system for our player cities and/or for main cities within our faction, however, sounds perfect. <snip> My observations of multiple collaborative building games to date is that I think dynamic gameplay which inspires players and allows them to affect the global outcome is mandatory to keep players engaged beyond the initial "Post your character introduction" period. Personally I think that methods of purchasing and limited materials can be discouraging for new players depending on the complexity of those rules, and can also be limiting for the creative license of builders. But I do feel that higher stakes should be involved in more Global Challenges, stakes for each player individually and for their faction as a whole. (Eg. GC VII with the whole injury/death roll) <snip> I think that provided that the rules are automated then I think players will pick this up quickly. Where the game fall over is where you need a person to tally up scores and when they don't have time everything stops. You also need a group of players mature enough to understand that a dynamic game with outcomes the players can influence will result in you winning some and losing some. Sometimes your faction/character might gain, sometimes they might lose. To this end I am in favour of a small, closed group. I think it's time to go to a new thing completely. It's not that LoR has nothing good, but starting afresh and using the good is better, I think, than trying to boost up the old with new.. hope that is comprehensible. I am the more into this idea as I am part of an upcoming RPG that was originally meant to appeal to LoR members. The only unfortunate thing is that it will likely be at least 10 more months before it will be launched, but I do believe it has all the best from LoR and a great deal more. The problem that LoR faces or faced was repetitiveness; same types of stories, same types of regulation, and though it has often tried to change, for example we had a GC where the winner effected the outcome.. it didn't really work. Because now it's too slow, and people haven't even responded on how they wanted the outcome to be, because half of the leaders are gone. In the new game, from the very start, we will try to avoid that, keep it fast paced with plenty of variation, and letting it go the way the people want it to go as much as possible. So for me, it's a complete change that would be best, including even a change of website maybe. I know it's drastic, and I would watch with interest if you guys decide to try to keep LoR going, maybe even start building for it a little, but my main loyalties are basically with the up-and-coming RPG, and I hope when it comes out many of you will be interested. I agree with this and voted the same way, and am about to post my own suggestions in the poll thread. The main reason I joined LoR over other castle based RPGs was the factions. I love them as they are and would strongly support keeping them and the map unchanged. If you are going to consider new factions and a new map then it is no longer LoR, but a new RPG (just my opinion). I would keep everything that has occurred previously as official lore. You can still create anew, borders can change slightly, the outlaws can become a nation if that is what they want (or we could make them NPC?), but lets not simply wipe out the years of role play that have gone before. While I do believe changes are needed as outlined in the jibber-jabber thread, I do believe that the game in its current state has the mechanisms in place for more player based stories. The under-used guild system and even the rival challenges would be great ways to advance stories and can be done in collaboration. Perhaps as a intrem solution we could make a way of making these systems more meaningful? While I would be willing to assist with reforming the game, I remain sceptical that all this won't just all blow over in a few weeks when everyone looses interest/goes back to work/school etc. Therefore if we do go ahead, what I would propose is a transition period where people get active again and prove a commitment to make it work. To that end I say we continue with the current format for a short time - the KC will release the next storyline update which will shift focus back to the mainland. As this happens we work in the background to create a more player based system that relies less heavily on a leadership group. We take a role call and re-populate the factions. Maybe some minor border changes. Maybe 4 is too many? Then when ready it's a clean slate but within the old geographic world. We start again. Factions can determine new leaders, new cities or whatever. We could implement a feudal type system like what is being discussed in the other thread.... Meanwhile as all this is going on, we the players could do some sort of mini colab refocusing on our factions? Maybe an Army flash mob like Garheim did a while back? Or everyone just builds a small classic castle theme build (either a LoR themed MOC based on one of TLG official kits eg. Blacksmith, Guarded Inn etc) or just something typically castley... Again, just my thoughts. So a few comments on this: - I agree that LoR has some great factions and lore. For me the one thing that makes LoR superior over GoH is the fact that magic, while not non-existent, is suppressed. This suits the type of world I find interesting. However, if this was redesigned there would be scope for rolling the best bits into the new factions/lore, and yes, this would be a new RPG on a new forum. One of the things BoBS does well is has a number of local NPC nations which can be the basis of war (which, let's face it, is what we all want) events. I also believe that due to the small group of players, four factions are too many, and the Outlaws are badly under-represented due to their different status in the lore.
- I think the guild system, rival challenges and free builds are great and a good way for players to contribute to the overall lore. But I'd flip the tables round, and instead of suggesting that the players should use these more I would suggest that the fact they are not used means they are not working and other outlets are required to encourage participation. Therefore, change is required.
- Regarding the commitment - again, I hope you don't think I'm being difficult, but I would flip the tables and say that being a member of the KC is a privilege that comes with great responsibility. I don't think it's fair to say that it's up to the players to motivate the KC - a good game with meaningful rules will encourage players to build. The fact that no-one is building for LoR any more suggests the current system is not working and participation will come if the environment is right to encourage it.
I should point out that I am one of the worst offenders for not participating, so not pointing the finger at anyone else. As a moderately new player, I am in favor of keeping some of the existing lore. The different faction and architecture styles is appealing because I like north style castle building. I am also a lore person and this page has a great section that deals with all the past lore all grouped into one neat little thread. However As I have now been introduced and trying to build for BoBs, I like how there is multiple projects going on, The ability to impact one settlement, doing a collaborative group story or being able to do an individual story. More player impact on global events is encouraged but i think some sort of moderator is needed in order to settle disputes. I would also be willing to help so as to not have to put some much burden on a few people. (Idea: Fast forward LoR by 100 years in order to start with a fresh slate and new factions both player and NPC while keeping the lore that many people have worked hard to create as historical facts) Firstly, I would say that if a new game was created, the best bits of the lore and factions from LoR could be incorporated into it. I think that if the RPG was a small closed group of players and everyone got a say in the setup, it would give players more ownership and encourage participation. Secondly, the idea of fast forwarding 100 years is genius. That could be a great compromise if the general consensus is to stick within the LoR lore. Sorry for not chiming in earlier, I too have been following the conversation but I have not had time to respond. (I keep starting to write replies which become obsolete before I finish them. Why did everybody start talking so fast all the sudden?) Anyway, this is a good discussion, and a conversation that needs to be had. I think considering an overhaul to the game system is getting ahead of ourselves a bit. As much as we all might like the idea of a land grab or economy mechanic, it seems clear that none of us have the time to construct, run, or participate in a more complex game than we already have. Moreover, I for one am not going to be motivated put in the work of designing a new system if there is no assurance that anyone will actually build for it. As we've seen with LoR 2.0 and the colonization challenge, rule upgrades do not magically generate participation, even if they are highly positive changes. To me, the heart of LoR has always been the player's stories for their personal characters, in GCs, yes, but also ongoing in free builds and guild builds. I don't think the global storyline ought to be the focus, but a backdrop which adds changing and universal details to the personal stories. Yes, allowing players to influence the global storyline is fun, but that is necessarily limited in extent under any system. Even when the players have no influence on the global storyline, they have near complete freedom to tell any story they want. That's how LoR can be player-driven without a byzantine global game control mechanic. With that said, I think part of our problem is that we're currently placing a little too much emphasis on the GCs and global storyline, to the point that if there is no GC, no one builds anything. With nothing apparently going on in the forum, the interest of both players and the KC is diminished, which slows things down further and diminishes entries when the GC does arrive. Paradoxically, the only thing that reliably generates participation, is participation. Therefore, as Ayrlego has said, I think the way forward is simply for those of us who are interested, (and there seem to be quite a few in these threads), to simply build for LoR and tell their own stories. If that happens, then the KC will either get with the program and keep producing content, or they can be replaced with members who have shown commitment (and more free time). Once we have some momentum again, and some assurance that the whole thing isn't an exercise in futility, then we can start implementing improvements such as you guys are discussing here. The larger issue, and the one that's harder to solve, is that most of us seem to have had little time lately for LEGO at all, and thus those who do have moved on to other things. Again, that scarcity of time and members is a reason to be wary of a complex game. The real question is, are we going to have enough active builders this year to sustain LoR? If we are, then all those that are interested are going to have to actually build, and we need to move to a decentralized system that doesn't depend on a large amount of work from the KC. Anyway, glad to see the enthusiasm in here. I would be in favor of many of the improvements suggested, I just think we need some activity to build on first. P.S. I am opposed to any replacement of current lore or timeline, as to me, a large part of the appeal of LoR is all the interconnected history that has come before. P.P.S. Can anyone explain how Die Neun Reiche actually works? I find it intriguing, but don't really know much about it beyond the builds I see. I think you can run a complex game if you want to, it's just a case of getting the right environment for this to flourish. Basic admin tasks (recording builds, adding points, etc) could be automated away ( just to reiterate, this is something I do for a living and would be willing to help with). Instead of waiting for centrally controlled challenges, give the players the ability to do more meaningful things outside of these (see some ideas in the poll thread) - this will also allow the moderators to participate in challenges and not relegate them to housekeeping duties). You hit the nail on the head with the chicken and egg situation around participation - without an active leadership team, no-one builds; but without players building the leadership are demotivated to create challenges. This has been particularly acute over the last 6 months in LoR.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 7, 2018 10:06:34 GMT -8
I also want to apologize if it seems I'm pointing fingers at anyone; the KC past and present have done a great job at creating a fun game that got me to unpack my LEGOs, sort them, and start building again - something that I likely wouldn't have done otherwise I also admit that I don't fully understand the time and effort that goes into moderating, and it sounds hypocritical when criticizing inactivity after declining an offer at a leadership position. I'm just engaging in a conversation that needed to be had and giving my views on it. - The participation paradox is redundant. It's easy to excuse inactivity with more inactivity. In truth, we all need reasons to be active; incentives to build. Shifting the focus and rearranging what already exists in LoR would be a great way to start, for the time being. Making the Guilds more prominent sounds interesting; give players a reason beyond self-satisfaction and bragging rights to work through the guild ranks. Maybe implement some sort of Guild Wars? (we all seem to like the War aspect, huh ) I agree that participation comes with inspiration and we're all inspired by the great mocs each other creates. - Putting smaller, simple challenges in place for players to work towards - weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly challenges that players can achieve either competitively, cooperatively, or alone - that don't put emphasis on a huge footprint would be easy to build and wouldn't be so time-consuming. Additional large challenges could be offered for those who want to build large, but the main focus on these should be simplicity. With GC's and even a lot of the LC's, the focus is always on the biggest builds - they earn the most points by far and draw the most attention - but large builds take time, something most of us have little of. The Weekly Challenge Garheim tried last year would be much easier to build for; I know I could find time to build something as simple as an 8x8 while still being creative about it.
|
|
Sir Daren
Lenfald
Training men and looking for work
Posts: 260
|
Post by Sir Daren on Jan 7, 2018 11:14:07 GMT -8
I also want to keep the current lore. If we needed to make drastic changes in the storyline to affect whatever outcomes decided, I would volunteer to help create a storyline that would set the stage for the changes. That way we can keep the old lore, whatever changes arise (and it would be a fun challenge!)
|
|
Ember
Lenfald
Preparing for the wars to come
Posts: 57
|
Post by Ember on Jan 7, 2018 12:03:06 GMT -8
I would also like to apologize if it seemed I was stepping over any of the admin team or KC. They have done an amazing job at keeping this game going and running the technicalities of this game that we don't often see.
I would also like to volunteer to help with any storyline or rule updates. I am currently on summer holidays so I have plenty of time on my hands.
|
|
josdu
Outlaws
Marooned on the Island of Lost Souls
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by josdu on Jan 8, 2018 5:16:02 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity but what is this new roleplay group? I'll be honest, especially with the pause the RPG I'm talking about is going through, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. Sorry to be so annoying as that, but I felt like I should admit I wasn't going to be able to get all that much into LoR even if all these great ideas were put into place, and I said candidly why, and now I really can't say more.
|
|
|
Post by thedonald13 on Jan 11, 2018 14:11:02 GMT -8
This happens every year. We get spikes in the summer when people tend to have more time and we usually have a decent jump in participation around this time of year because of the CCC. But, we didn't capitalize and coordinate a GC with that in mind like usual. Also, it doesn't help much we haven't gotten any close to castle relate set from TLG. Now is definitely a quiet time, but we are hoping to bring back some builders with the upcoming story lines. Thanks for the perspective Donald! Are you part of the leadership team? Can you give us any information on when the next GC might land? Sorry for the late response, but yes I am apart of the leadership team. But, I will say I am not the most active of the group, but I do check in as often as I can. Good news is that one of the main driving forces behind the story line has come back from a lengthy absence and some new content will follow. I personally would like see all LCs open up to all factions. This way we get more cross over action. With that being said I am hoping to get a fun Loreesi LC up that should boost some moral.
|
|