An Essay on Motivation (Long)

[Mykey]

Certainly. So happens. Let's discuss this question. Here or in PM.

[Marian]

The player of the child is chosen randomly and is virtually never the parents:: This would defeat the entire purpose of introducing children in the first place, as there would be no real family ties in the game. Children would, for all intents and purposes, be complete strangers to their parents and may not even associate with the family they were born into. For all practical purposes, they would just be newspawns. This mirrors real life -- but only to a very limited extent. While some children grow up to be radically independent or even hostile to their parents, most children, at least in some fashion, follow in their parents' footsteps or at least associate with their families. If the players are never the parents, then there would be no family ties in the game and little insentive for players to bother with children at all.

I agree with this and the rest of the post, babies shouldn't always be one of the parents because that would be to predictable, but there has to be a good chance it will be. Maybe a 40% chance it'll be Mom, 40% for Dad, and only 20% someone else?

Because I agree it would be crushingly disappointing, especially after all the trouble you go to, to wind up with some random baby who's no different from a regular newspawn. (And newspawns suck...while I'm doing percentages, only about 20% of them can type, and probably only half that number bother to RP, assuming they even wake up in the first place. Hopefully the 40 day rule will help that last part, but those still aren't good odds for the parents.)

And how would the other player be picked? SOmeone goes to spawn a new char, and there's a random chance they wind up as a baby if there's one available at that time? (between 13-16 years old, I think was the suggesion?)

There should have to be some kind of Idiot Test you have to take before you're eligible, or at least it should be optional, because someone who didn't want a baby and wound up as one would probably wind up sleeping to death, and that would suck almost as bad as getting a baby that says something like 'Ahhhh! I'm crazy, somebody kill me!' the moment they 'come to life'

[Mykey]

I confirm. It was and with me. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.

[Marian]

Ooh! just had a thought!

Sociologist mentioned that babies could be kidnapped, which I think would be a great idea, (I wonder how much iron a baby is worth? ) but who gets to play them then? Even if the parents are good RPers, once one of them got to be the kid they might be influenced by knowing how the 'adopted' parent got it. (especially if the real parent was killed in the process.) No one's going to want to risk kidnapping a baby in that case.

And what if both parents are killed in some other way? If dying first means you lose your chance (which would be interesting because it might lead to murders...), or even if it was the other way around, which one gets it? I guess that would be easy to fix by it not mattering who dies first though, so, moving on...


About the the kidnapping thing and who gets the kid again, all the posts so far have been about randomness, and that could still be a big part of it, but maybe it should also be effected by who spends the most time raising and caring for it.

[DylPickle]

I'm thinking Sociologist managed to expand that little something a lot of us were feeling, into an epic

I like pretty much every suggestion in that thing.

I don't know much of anything when it comes to difficulties of progaraming, but the clothing description on the whisper page would definatly be useful, and looks, to me, like it would be an easy implementation to the game.

[Just A Bill]

A lot of interesting information. A couple of things that struck me.

First, one of the reasons listed for coins never taking off was the ability of cantrarians to measure to the gram. What if, with every view/transaction you made there was a built in error of +- 15%. So you look at your inventory it says you have 259g of iron, in reality, you might have 243 or 270 who knows. You say you want to trade 100g to someone, so you indicate click give->person0>100g. You might actually give him 93g. When he sees the 93g, he might believe it to be 102g or 82g or whatever. Mints would be able to press coins exactly, and could be labeled with weight. Coins could also be used in projects as though they were their weight in the metal...

Next, someone mentioned that if the "owning parent" of a child died or disavowed the character, someone else could inherite it. I would like to see this for all characters. Instead of having a character suicide or asking PD to remove him, players could disavow any character. Write up a paragraph or two about the characters life. When a player creates a new character, one of the options would be to adopt a character. They would get to view the paragraph, then decide if they want to play that character. They should not be given a choice to look at all abandonded characters, just one or two random ones, and if they don't like either of them, the can just generate a new one like we do now... There are of course opportunities to abuse such a system, but for a good role player the experience would be a lot of fun I think, and it might cut down on all the people losing friends and loved ones when a player quits.

[Doug R.]

A lot of interesting information. A couple of things that struck me.

First, one of the reasons listed for coins never taking off was the ability of cantrarians to measure to the gram. What if, with every view/transaction you made there was a built in error of +- 15%. So you look at your inventory it says you have 259g of iron, in reality, you might have 243 or 270 who knows. You say you want to trade 100g to someone, so you indicate click give->person0>100g. You might actually give him 93g. When he sees the 93g, he might believe it to be 102g or 82g or whatever. Mints would be able to press coins exactly, and could be labeled with weight. Coins could also be used in projects as though they were their weight in the metal...

Next, someone mentioned that if the "owning parent" of a child died or disavowed the character, someone else could inherite it. I would like to see this for all characters. Instead of having a character suicide or asking PD to remove him, players could disavow any character. Write up a paragraph or two about the characters life. When a player creates a new character, one of the options would be to adopt a character. They would get to view the paragraph, then decide if they want to play that character. They should not be given a choice to look at all abandonded characters, just one or two random ones, and if they don't like either of them, the can just generate a new one like we do now... There are of course opportunities to abuse such a system, but for a good role player the experience would be a lot of fun I think, and it might cut down on all the people losing friends and loved ones when a player quits.

The first point would be too annoying. Realistic, but annoying, especially with the lag we've currently been experiencing. Coinage may get a boost once item decay is introduced for stored items. It will be easier to travel long distances with coin or raw precious metals/diamonds than it will be to have your tradables rot along the way.

The second point is really bad from a PD point of view. Once a character hits 20, they're stuck with their player, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Babies that are still considered objects can simply wind up being played by the primary caregiver (whomever adopts it when the parent dies).

[The Sociologist]

1607-2.06: Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties says: "*smiles*"

1607-2.06: You see Neogeo, a man in his sixties talking to a woman in her twenties.

1607-2.06: You see Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties efficiently kill a desert tortoise using a steel sabre.

1607-2.06: You see Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties talking to Dr. Lance Avery of Blojt, a man in his seventies.

1607-2.06: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.06: You see a woman in her twenties talking to Neogeo, a man in his sixties.

1607-2.06: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.06: You see Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties entering Doryiskom*, coming from Gracieland Mansion.

1607-2.06: You see Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties leaving the central area of Doryiskom*, entering Gracieland Mansion.

1607-2.06: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.06: You see Neogeo, a man in his sixties talking to a woman in her twenties.

1607-2.06: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.06: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.06: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.05: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.05: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.05: You see Dr. Lance Avery of Blojt, a man in his seventies talking to Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties.

1607-2.05: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.05: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.05: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a man in his twenties.

1607-2.05: You see Gracie Powers, a woman in her fifties talking to Dr. Lance Avery of Blojt, a man in his seventies.

1607-2.05: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.04: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a man in his twenties.

1607-2.04: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.04: You see a man in his twenties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.04: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.03: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.03: You see a woman in her twenties talking to Neogeo, a man in his sixties.

1607-2.03: You see a man in his twenties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.02: You see Dr. Lance Avery of Blojt, a man in his seventies talking to a woman in her fourties.

1607-2.02: You see Neogeo, a man in his sixties talking to a woman in her twenties.

1607-2.02: You see a man in his twenties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.02: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.02: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.02: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.01: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.01: You see a woman in her twenties talking to Neogeo, a man in his sixties.

1607-2.01: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.01: You see Neogeo, a man in his sixties talking to a woman in her twenties.

1607-2.00: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a man in his twenties.

1607-2.00: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.00: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a man in his twenties.

1607-2.00: You see a woman in her twenties talking to Neogeo, a man in his sixties.

1607-2.00: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-2.00: You see a man in his twenties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see Neogeo, a man in his sixties talking to a woman in her twenties.

1607-1.35: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see a man in his twenties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a man in his twenties.

1607-1.35: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.35: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.34: You see a man in his twenties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.34: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.34: You see Zara, a woman in her thirties talking to a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.34: You see a woman in her thirties talking to Zara, a woman in her thirties.

1607-1.34: You see a woman in her twenties talking to Neogeo, a man in his sixties.

1607-1.34: You see a woman in her twenties talking to Neogeo, a man in his sixties.

Congratulations to Gracie there. An actual emote in public! She smiled! Wow!

The above is of course Dory. And it goes on and on, day after day.

One of the things I did in New Xanth was to try and have much more talking in public, though not all. This I'd picked up from the MacGregors in their heyday under Gregor himself. Remember the famous log on the death of Jessamin DuVar?

At the same time it is difficult to finetune the ambience of a town. Too much talking in public may make it too noisy for some. Too much whispering clearly kills off any sense of a commonality, of a public commons. And then what about relationships? These should surely be encouraged? Yet one has to consider the impact on a clan-like town of the sudden advent of too much whispering. Added to this the issue of people isolated in buildings.

I've raised this issue here because I was wondering whether the abovementioned enclosures plus building improvements might not hold part of the key to solving this, or at least permitting a wider variety of social behaviors.

For example, assuming one did have enclosures, might it be possible to filter out whispering and various actions such as hunting and sparring while allowing through public speech? And the same could apply to an improved building with a window that was "open". If the window was "closed" then the situation would remain as it is now. Could such be programmed?

This is, by the way, by no means a trivial matter. I know no for sure of people who have actually left the game because of it. Very valued people too

[BarbaricAvatar]

That's not really a good example. Plus it doesn't really help that you have no names, how do we know that's not just one long conversation between two people with the odd other whisper between others?

[Sho]

Because there are names.

[BarbaricAvatar]

Yes of course, i mean it's a very low possibility that there could be more than one person in the game with the name 'a man in his twenties' or 'a woman in her twenties'

[Sho]

There are four names in there, plus at least three different unnamed characters.

[Oasis]

BA, you can believe him when he says this is a constant occurrence in that town. I finally have a character there, and it is terrible! And it's not the only place that is like that.

I really like those ideas, of some kind of outdoor enclosure, and open and shut windows. This would hopefully allow towns to make stricter rules and enforce them, rather than just jail people for excessive whispering.

[Marian]

I like the window idea. Of course I'd like it even more if people just had the common decency to go inside if they know they're going to have a long private conversation instead of spamming other players? (Or if towns had the guts to make a law against excessive whispering...that I would like the most!)

I'd never leave the game over it, but I've definitely left a lot of towns with a promise to myself to never, ever return.

[saztronic]

*shrugs* I like Doryiskom. I seem to be in the minority, at least here on the forums. If you don't like being left out of a conversation, try starting one.

I've seen charries make efforts to improve conversation in that town, from games to public announcements to electoral debates to outright pleas for people to talk more. I don't know what it is that keeps that from happening -- but maybe it's players with attitudes leaving instead of doing something about it. Self-fulfilling prophecy.