I am a bit of a roleplayer, but lean a bit to a more casual, organic approach. I tend to have a good understanding of my character and his or her personality and place in the world. I prefer to roleplay around what actually happens in game (and to have as many systems as possible in place to encourage and facilitate that), and do not enjoy elaborate, player-crafted roleplaying scenarios. They come off as forced and artificial, and tend to break the fourth wall and shatter my sense of immersion. The exception to this would be forum roleplay, in which such elaboration is necessary. In my opinion, the two are different beasts, and require different approaches, at least for me.
In general, I look for an immersive world, mostly governed by the action of the players, with minimal participation on the part of the staff (mostly just handling any major problems that come up). I enjoy a well developed lore, so I can get a feel for the world and create a relevant character. I like everything to run automatically, as much as possible, and do not wish to see the strings of the puppeteer(s), or as little as possible. To that end, I enjoy systems, of which the various communities have made many, that greatly enhance the experience. These need not be “useful”, but can rather just be nice little touches that enhance the sense of immersion. I am a bit of an explorer, so new areas, secret doors, etc.
I likewise am not a fan of elaborate staff-lead events, for much the same reason, especially if they are announced. I had rather such content were introduced behind the scenes (relatively rarely), unannounced and unexplained, and have players discover it along the way and draw their own conclusions. I would not want the staff playing the villains, but had rather use preplaced NPCs. Or perhaps have players or staff play the leaders of various evil group, though only if it were done in an organic manner. Finding the right PvP/RP balance could facilitate this.
I do not like quests, quest lines, or starting areas, and feel that they likewise break immersion and come off as contrived. No quests (except the escort "quests") was rule number one with the shard I am developing (and hopefully releasing soon). Larger quests, with named bosses, are particularly immersion breaking, as they can be replayed. On the other hand, I find a a nicely crafted dungeon with a “story” or theme (presented graphically rather than explained via text..well, maybe hints), with unnamed, or randomly named bosses much more satisfying. It keeps things more plausible, somewhat vague, and has more potential for replayability. As for starting areas, I do not see the need. The somewhat steep learning curve is a large part of what made UO interesting. By way of comparison, I played WoW for about five months a several years ago, and, while it was fun for a bit, ultimately it could not really hold my interest. I do think that the quest-based, theme park formula works, and is enjoyable, but it is not as deep an experience. I see it more as as multiple multiplayer RPGs encased in a larger MMO framework. Sandbox and theme park are two different approaches, and I do not think that they mix well. In short, for my tastes, UO would not benefit from anything that games such as WoW bring to the table.
I think a sprinkling of unique, conversational NPCs is a good thing, but more for flavor than as quest givers. They could perhaps dispense general information on the location of certain new areas and such, but would not be integral.
I tend to use only in-game communication (maybe short chat or email to coordinate now and again). I do think that a forum is essential.
I am not a PvPer, but feel that PvP provides a necessary sense of danger and excitement. Some, maybe most, of my most interesting moments from UO involve PvP (i.e. me being killed in various, often humorous, sometimes epic ways). I likewise think that, if implemented correctly, it can add a lot of depth and possibilities to the game. I am not sure I would wish to play on a purely PvE server. At the same time, free for all PvP has potentially detrimental effects for roleplay, and would likewise not want to play on a server that was a constant hackfest. In my opinion, splitting the two via different facets was a terrible notion. I think this is one of the more difficult areas to balance. In short, I would want the possibility of conflict, but would wish it to be somewhat in the background. Finding that balance could facilitate many elements on a RP server.
As far as aesthetics goes, I prefer a detailed approach. I think much of the charm is in the details, often the subtle touches. Certain art styles appeal to me, while others are off putting. The graphics need not be state of the art, but it has to speak to my aesthetic sense. The old school Ultima look of the 2D client perfect for my taste (and the more detailed and beautiful the better, of course). The garish, flashy look of AoS and later expansions clash severely with that aesthetic. I wish they had stayed with and expanded on that style instead of opting for ninjas, neon colors and an item-based approach. I also like the look of the enhanced client, but find it clunky to use. I don't like large, mostly empty areas that seem to have been thrown together for the sake of having something new, and geared mainly toward combat/competition.
I would most definitely want to play on a shard that features stat and skill caps, preferably the same as the original, and somewhat slow skill gain. No prizes or extensive giving of gold and items, whether starting, or as a reward for something or other. I think the game needs to be somewhat difficult. I also like being forced to make choices, else it becomes rather nebulous and bland for me.
