The Medium #12:

Size Matters

by Karrin Dailey
May 12, 2003

While it isn't a resounding testament to my social life, the fact that I've been MU*ing for ten years means I've seen the medium evolve since its nearly its beginning. I've sampled my share of games, and I'd like to think that this has given me some insight. In particular, I've played on small games and large ones, and I've seen the pros and cons of both.

Overall, I've come out in favor of smaller games, but that doesn't necessarily mean that big is bad. I just don't think every game should strive to be a colossus, but rather it should find its niche and develop well within it. Letting go of the idea that bigger is better is the first step in comfortably developing a smaller game, and then understanding the difference size makes is the key to making it work.

The Colossus

When preaching the success of their games, wizards often cite the number of logins as the proof that their game not only rocks but possibly rolls as well. It's an easy qualifier to look for – if there are lots of players, then obviously the game is popular, therefore it's successful. There is a grain of truth to that notion, but the truth can be deceptive. Sure, if you're getting plenty of logins, that means at least that many players enjoy the game enough to log in consistently. However, that doesn't say a thing about the quality of the RP to be found there. I've logged into plenty of games thinking that, if there are lots of people there, RP must be abundant only to find that there are a dozen miniature games in progress, and the plethora of players are not necessarily, nor even usually, good ones.

I've noticed that usually big games draw numerous players by attempting to cater to everything. If it's a WoD game for example, it offers every conceivable supernatural group, even the ones whose respective existence in the same city should, by all logic, leave the place a smoldering crater within a matter of days. The themes of these massive places are barely existent, and where they do exist, they're rarely more intricate than 'it's a WoD game and we offer lots of spheres.' It's no wonder the player base splits into smaller groups that rarely cross paths; it's either that or try to tell a story wherein chaos and random mayhem play major roles.

I suppose if the people involved are enjoying themselves, then there's no harm, no foul. It's just that these games doesn't seem to have a cohesive theme, and staff is scattered to the four winds. If there are enough staff members to cover the player base, then you run into the problem of miscommunication and too many cooks spoiling the soup. If the staff is small enough to be unified in their purpose, then they're stretched thin from having to divide so many players among so few resources.

The Hole In the Wall

In light of so many large games collapsing under their own weight, I've noticed an increasing tendency for people to measure the success of their games by saying that they have a small staff and manageable player base. What is stressed here is the quality of RP, and though I tend to prefer these games, they're not without their faults. A small player base means fewer chances of finding new people with whom to RP, and new players can often feel excluded when the meager player base has already formed its clique, and everyone pretty much has their role within the group covered.

Smaller games tend to be smaller for one of two reasons; they either suck so much that no one logs in, or they hold themselves and their players to a high standard, thereby separating the wheat from the chaff and emerging with a good group of players and staff. Fortunately, figuring out which is the case doesn't take a rocket scientist. Unfortunately, small games that thrive because of their quality can become big games as more players flock to them, and the element that made them work is no longer there.

Smaller games mean staff members have more resources to offer the individual player, and it's easy to develop a rapport with one's fellow players and administration, but it also means that individual players must be able to tell their own stories and effectively entertain themselves, because there is a limited amount of varied interaction. If there are only ten active players at peak hours, and five of them have no reason to interact with you, while three are locked away in a private scene, that leaves two people with whom you probably RP every day. Things can get stale.

Smaller games that don't cater to everyone are able to nail down a particular theme more easily, in my opinion. Finding a focus and sticking with it is going to alienate players who don't share your vision, but it will draw players that do. The upside of this is that your game will have a cohesive theme, and a shared storyline in which each player's part matters. The downside is that you have to be careful to maintain that high quality all the time. Since each player's part matters, you really don't want to run them off the game with OOC drama and staff corruption. Having a cadre of ten players quit a game in a huff isn't such a big deal when the player base at peak hours tops fifty, but when your player base at peak hours is that cadre of ten players, you're in trouble.

Making it Work

The first step in making your game work, regardless of its size, is deciding what you're aiming for. Short of making a stringent application process, you can't really control how many players will log in, but you can make some reasonable predictions. Realize that if you don't cater to everything, you're going to have a small game. If you set your standard to appeal to the lowest common denominator, you're going to get a lot of logins. Be prepared to either nurture a modest player base or deal with an influx of players accordingly. It also helps to have a contingency plan. If your small game takes off, have a plan for dealing with more players than you had originally intended. If your mega-game doesn't draw in the numbers, plan on tailoring your game to the players you have. In other words, know what you want from the get-go, but be flexible. Realize the hazards and plan for an effective way to deal with them.

A big game can work, but you're going to have to deal with the reality that lots of players doesn't necessarily equate lots of good players. Also, you're also going to have to plan for stretching limited staff resources far enough to cover a large player base. Personally, I think automating everything that can be automated is a great idea. If it doesn't need a human touch, code it. This leaves staff members free to handle situations that do require them. A machine can crunch numbers, so let it. Reserve your staff for storytelling and handling players' questions and requests.

Hiring lots of staff isn't necessarily the best answer, since too many people with too many interpretations of the game's theme can tear it apart. Communication among staff members and players is essential, as is a system for dealing with the conflicts of interest that are going to arise in numbers given the large range of personalities and desires being dealt with. If you can find an impartial mediator whose sole task is resolving conflict, hang on to this person and count your blessings. Otherwise, you might want to implement a panel of mediators wherein different points of view are fairly represented.

Also, realize that unless your player base interacts in ways that aren't realistic (a romantic love triangle between the vampire Prince, the werewolf Alpha, and a changeling for example) then your large game is going to fracture into a number of smaller games or there are going to be constant violent clashes. These are not necessarily bad things, but you should plan for them because they are going to set the tone for your game.

If that seems like more hassle then it's worth, consider the smaller game for your MU* venture. If you don't want to draw in the numbers, curtailing them is a simple matter of finding one faction, or a small group of them, and sticking with it. You're guaranteed to appeal to only the players interested in playing that faction. Further, if you make your application process more stringent, then you're going to get the players you want, in theory. There are always going to be a few undesirables who slip in through the cracks, but chances are they won't last long in your streamlined setting. It's much easier to put people off your idea than to turn them on to it, so keeping a game small is no big task.

Providing you actually manage to attract enough players to make a go of it, you can have an intimate game with a group of players whose styles of play work well together. This is the idea, anyway. Maintaining it however means you've got to take good care of your players, because if they all decide to vote with their feet you won't have a game. Be careful of scandals and corruption, because the domino effect of one player quitting and others following suit is devastating to a small game. A decent rapport and more intimate atmosphere means that you're going to be more closely scrutinized. It's small town syndrome – everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

You're also going to want to encourage players to tell their own stories, and to incorporate NPCs and external elements into their RP, because with a smaller player base, there are fewer wild cards when it comes to the random element in RP. This is good for cutting down on the jackass factor, but it's bad in that players settle into comfortable ruts, and the unpredictability that makes RP fun is harder to come by. To alleviate this, run plots (the more tailored to your players the better) and encourage players to come up with their own ways of shaking things up. Let them create external events to effect their characters. Give them more of a hand in the plotting. It's necessary to cover the number of ambient characters who aren't represented by PCs.

The Measure of Success

Whatever game size is best is a matter of opinion, as is the measure of a game's success. Ideally, tailoring a game to its niche offers options for whatever the discerning gamer prefers. I'd like to see the medium move away from the idea that a long WHO list equals success, because it shouldn't be a popularity contest. Size does matter, but only in the sense that you don't want to run a big game like a small one or vice versa. They're not the same, and the methods for dealing with them aren't interchangeable. As for what makes a successful game, I'll take quality over quantity any day.