It might be somewhat bad form to post a large group of suggestions and comments in a single thread- rather than addressing the specific points individually where they have been previously posted- but I feel it somewhat necessary to compose my thoughts as a general theory about the nature of SS13's meta and gameplay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My first point would be to ask, what is Space Station 13? A who-dun-it set in an abusrd sci-fi deathtrap? An action filled campy space adventure full of death and mayhem? A complex atmospherics, electrical, social, and logistical simulator seeking to replicate the functions of a futuristic space station?
To me it seems clear that it's all of these things- each in varied parts and to different degrees depending on the players involved and the round type invoked. Yet ultimately the game and it's playerbase can be summarized into a selection of elements, which I will attempt to list as follows:
-A game of betrayal and suspicion: where players limited agency and knowledge creates an atmosphere of paranoia and alertness. SS13 rewards players more than almost any other game for subtlety, stealth, misdirection, and subterfuge.
-A game of action: not strictly in the sense of run-and-gun heroics, but one where the focus of the gameplay is on a focused window of time (the roughly hour or two round) and has a clear progression from arrival to development to payout to emergency to evacuation or victory. This is to say, the core game is not a sandbox, but a round type of gameplay.
-A game of nuance and rich detail: The above two could easily be achieved in a game with far less detail and content; yet it is the believably in spite of all the madness that makes the game truly enjoyable. That these actions of intrigue and adventure occur against a player-managed backdrop of mundane interaction and work makes it far more believable and engaging. It is core to SS13's premise that player agency drive the environment as much as the mechanics, meta, or lore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having established what I believe are the 3 general views or facets regarding the game, I then will bring the question to address the seeming incongruities that I and surely others notice regarding its current state.
Why is there seemingly a great deal of community agitation regarding the balance between roleplay and gameplay?
Why have certain departments, namely Security and RnD dominated meta discussions regarding balance, while other core departments seem to be given an ancillary status?
I could attempt to individually address dozens of gameplay issues but I think there is a broader point that can be made about these conflicts. People don't necessarily want or expect perfect balance, nor do they explicitly desire only things that make them win, this is often tossed around as a polemic to vilify people who differ in opinion from a given proposal. No, players want to feel rewarded for playing the game the way they want to play it.
In SS13 terms, they want their greentext.
Therefore, I would consider the main issue of developing a game like SS13 to be designing the game around this fulfillment of wants in a way which also encourages or enables the same for others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to say that the game should be easy- or hand over victory to all players easily- I am of course referring to greentext and fulfillment of wants in the sense of the player's satisfaction with the events of a given round. This is to say: add or encourage mechanics that add a sense of earned satisfaction to any action, no matter how trivial, by imparting them with a mechanical advantage.
Now, this may sound like I'm endorsing Roll-Play, or some form of play-to-win incentive to roleplaying; and I will be the first to say that you can't force good RP on people who don't want it- nor stimulate good RPers with mechanical carrots-on-sticks.
But given a choice between SS13 forsaking either mechanical robustness or roleplaying depth in favor of the other- you are asking one to choose between losing their body or their soul. The game can survive without either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to achieve this I will put forward a solution that is in itself somewhat of a buzzword: Interdependence. However, this is a very vague term that alone doesn't mean much- so I will add another defining word to it to specify what I believe is a necessary step in considering all design choices:
Validating Interdependence.
What this translates to is more or less this: Even the most basic job on the station can contribute in a significant way to either the crew's success, or failure.
When evaluating a given department or role, the first question should be: How can this role enhance the survivability of not just it's own department, but of the station as a whole?
As it stands, many roles in the station- namely the ones which best validate players who seek roleplaying- Bartender, Chef, Clown, Mime, Librarian, and Chaplain- have little to offer or preform mechanically. While certain game modes or circumstances may give them some agency in a round- they are- in my opinion- not adequately equipped or able to be a necessary part of the crew.
Likewise- the more mechanically inclined roles on the station- namely The AI, Engineers, Atmospheric Techs, Cargo, and the Janitor require the ability to either add to, modify, or improve the station in a manner that appeals to their mechanically driven desires. Few if any players want to be a soulless automaton that exists only to service the station with no creative input on it's form or function.
Lastly, the parts of the crew that are more focused on achievement of goals- security, medical, and RnD can easily become dominant if given too much share of agency without being dependent on other department to succeed at their desired ends. Likewise, if nerfed to oblivion or simply made into paramilitary death-squads, these jobs risk becoming thoroughly unfun and a burden on their players akin to baby-sitting the mentally infirm and then shooting them when it gets too irritating.
Thus- the only way to harmonize these departments, their players, and their varied goals, is to ensure that no one of them can succeed without the aid and cooperation of the others. None can monopolize fun without extending at least a bit of it to another player.
Even the most hardcore play-to-win robuster will take the time to delve into the game's passive mechanics if it means he will gain a new asset or tool to enhance his robustness.
Likewise, even the most passive roleplayer will seek to become more robust if the means to do so are framed within his ability to preform his allotted crew role.
This is, in my view, the only means to unify all varieties of players and all types of gamemodes with a common thread. No amount of individual attempts at balance, removal, addition, re-adjustment, or refocusing of the game's metagame by individuals based on their own perceptions of fun can adequately address the diverse nature of SS13 and it's playerbase. Instead one must address the game as a whole, with the fulfillment of all types of gameplay preferences as the main goal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closest thing to a TLDR here:
So at this point you're probably hoping I get to the point and make some actual practical suggestions based on these principles, so here are a few to indicate just what I mean:
-The return of bureaucracy; this time with purpose: Many see bureaucracy as an unnecessary and irritating burden on the flow of gameplay. I would suggest then that it be not-so unnecessary. If properly stamped or signed documents had to be scanned into consoles and machines to authorize certain acts- then departments will require the cooperation of others to get past certain gateways of development. As it stands, one requires an ID for many
tasks, but IDs represent items, not players- and ultimately their theft or forgery should be reserved for antagonists and not legitimate crew functions. If a given person fails to preform their job or truly is grossly incompetent- then that is what IC punishments, demotions, and ultimately job-bans are for. Failure to tolerate and punish bad players is as bad as punishing good players as far as multiplayer games go.
-Exclusivity of equipment: While redundant devices and supplies on a space station seems realistic- it is bad for gameplay in that it makes many jobs unnecessary or ancillary. The fact that hunger can be sated from a number of lifeless vendors, while the chef toils over his microwave is an example of this. To tie it into the previous example of bureaucracy, the Librarian's copier, if it was the only on the station, would suddenly become a valuable
tool, and his management of it would give him a significant role to preform on the station.
-An emphasis on traitor-mode: Team antag modes are fun, I don't deny that- but they reward a much smaller portion of the crew than the longer, generally more inclusive traitor modes. The excitement of an action-filled cult, rev, or ops round is somewhat dulled if it's the 4th of such rounds in a row. On the contrary, the classic traitor rounds tend to emphasize the gathering and wise use of on-station resources to accomplish your goals, and result in less mass-destruction that cuts others rounds unduly short without their agency mattering much.
-Sec needs to be efficient, but limited: I will make it known that I'm firmly against round-start armament of Security. The threats facing a station in Blue Alert do not call for lasers, riot-gear, or tear-gas grenades, much less cargo-ordered lethal weapons. The efficiency of tasers, batons, flashbangs, and sec borgs need to be guaranteed- but further armament and preparation should require more effort to avoid turning sec into another faction of valid-hunting pseudo-antags.
-Mechanical buffs from support staff: MAKE CIVILIAN JOBS RELEVANT 2016: Here's where I'll outright grandstand my favorite jobs; Chef, Bartender, Botanist, Chaplain, and less so Librarian (beacuse christ how useless). Give these fuckers something mechanically rewarding to do! Make Food and Hunger a relevant system, make well-cooked meals give buffs. Make botany into a ghetto-chemistry with the ability to buff the shit out of it's friends. Make alcoholics into tough sons of bitches under the effects of their generous purveyor's spirits. (wieldable bar chairs are a good first step); make the chaplain's blessings and services benefit the crew in ways meaningful outside of cult, and give the librarian a place in the station bureaucracy and logistics!
-NON-ANTAG OBJECTIVES: LITERALLY HAND PEOPLE THEIR GREENTEXT! Really though- well thought out goals for every crewmember will give clear incentives to cooperation and direct work to productive endeavors. Maybe even the option to choose your round-start objectives from a list relevant to your department. This one is partly for fun- but I do think it will improve the 'work-ethic' of the crew and discourage fucking-off into space/ away missions if combined with other mechanics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's my spiel- hopefully it was at least somewhat interesting or enlightening, or at the least you found my autism amusing. Do please tell me if you think I'm anywhere on point.
