Lately, I have noticed that the multiplayer community has suffered increasingly much from unnecessary arguments, people not showing up in time or disappearing, ego clashes and, well, plain bad behaviour. This is a problem that causes lots of player changes and sometimes even gets campaigns disrupted.
Unfortunately, the community is so small that we can't really afford to stick to the rules of banning players that cause trouble. Even the most respected and dedicated players may sometimes lose control and say things they regret afterwards. Banning a permanent player would be a big drawback for any campaign, and eventually the rules must be ignored at least to some extent. Any campaign is dependent of having enough dedicated players playing!
These are the major things that annoy me in MP campaigns:
1) People that are late, don't show up or disappear
2) People that insult others
3) People that begin an argument when insulted instead of letting it pass and move on(!)
4) People whining that another country is ruining the game if they won't accept to certain peace terms
5) People threatening to leave when they get pissed up
6) Players of nations that have a very important role in an alliance war leaving for some odd reason forcing a rehost and sub-hunting
You may know other capital offences too or disagree with these, that is up for discussion.
How to keep to the rules and punish from these offenses without losing the players from the campaign then? How to keep the rules same for all players? If for example Peter Ebbesen would lose it some evening and verbally bash Wyvern to the lowest hell, and Wyvern would respond in some equally awful way (sorry guys for using your names as an example, I just thought of two well-known players that I really can't imagine doing this
), the rules would require kicking them off the campaign. Difficult question indeed.
There must be some sanction system, and the system should be in a way 'automatic' but not overly harsh. I propose we should not punish the player directly, but punish the country. Before the next session, reducing a point of stab or a point of centralization, maybe losing 2 months of income in ducats or getting +6 RR for 24 months would be a punishment. The harshness of the punishment would be dependent of the severity of the offense, and a proper apology would lessen it.
This would mean that when playing, people would have the incentive to just forget the occasional insult or whining. Before session, the Game Master just edits in the sanctions and the offense is then forgotten. No threatening of banning players, no endless arguments, just a plain machine-like sanction for the breach.
What do you think of this? Does it make any sense, do you think it would make the atmosphere better or worse? What would be good punishments? Etc, please comment..
Unfortunately, the community is so small that we can't really afford to stick to the rules of banning players that cause trouble. Even the most respected and dedicated players may sometimes lose control and say things they regret afterwards. Banning a permanent player would be a big drawback for any campaign, and eventually the rules must be ignored at least to some extent. Any campaign is dependent of having enough dedicated players playing!
These are the major things that annoy me in MP campaigns:
1) People that are late, don't show up or disappear
2) People that insult others
3) People that begin an argument when insulted instead of letting it pass and move on(!)
4) People whining that another country is ruining the game if they won't accept to certain peace terms
5) People threatening to leave when they get pissed up
6) Players of nations that have a very important role in an alliance war leaving for some odd reason forcing a rehost and sub-hunting
You may know other capital offences too or disagree with these, that is up for discussion.
How to keep to the rules and punish from these offenses without losing the players from the campaign then? How to keep the rules same for all players? If for example Peter Ebbesen would lose it some evening and verbally bash Wyvern to the lowest hell, and Wyvern would respond in some equally awful way (sorry guys for using your names as an example, I just thought of two well-known players that I really can't imagine doing this
), the rules would require kicking them off the campaign. Difficult question indeed. There must be some sanction system, and the system should be in a way 'automatic' but not overly harsh. I propose we should not punish the player directly, but punish the country. Before the next session, reducing a point of stab or a point of centralization, maybe losing 2 months of income in ducats or getting +6 RR for 24 months would be a punishment. The harshness of the punishment would be dependent of the severity of the offense, and a proper apology would lessen it.
This would mean that when playing, people would have the incentive to just forget the occasional insult or whining. Before session, the Game Master just edits in the sanctions and the offense is then forgotten. No threatening of banning players, no endless arguments, just a plain machine-like sanction for the breach.
What do you think of this? Does it make any sense, do you think it would make the atmosphere better or worse? What would be good punishments? Etc, please comment..
