Request For Feedback

[Sanvean]

Here's an idea that we're currently tossing around on the staff board: having staff members rotate clan responsiblities on a regular basis.  One form might be this:

Every six months, one swaps clans.  This would be staggered so when a new person came on board for a clan, there would be someone else working with them that had been working with the clan for three months already, that would be able to get them up to speed.

Pros of the idea, as I see it:

Avoids a problem with staff members getting overly attached to and protective of clans, which sometimes leads to dissension and possible plotlines getting discarded.
Brings a diversity of talents to the running of clan: one staff member may want to revamp the docs, another to build a bunch of NPCs, another to create interesting plotline, setc.
Allows staff to expand their overall knowledge of the game.
Allows staff to understand the dynamics and special considerations of other clans better when interacting.
Facilitates some standardization in the way various clans are handled.

Cons:
Loss of continuity and ability to oversee longterm plotlines from start to finish.
Adminstrative work in setting up change schedule.
Creates difficulties as far as not running avatars in your own clan is involved.
Creates work in the form of having to come up to speed on a clan.
Loss of a feeling of clan "ownership".
Risk of people being assigned to clans they don't particularly care for.
May lead to too many changes in clans as they shift from one set of hands to another.

So here's the question: what reservations or hopes regarding this idea would you have from the player side of things?

[Desertman (not logged in)]

I dont really care for this idea. While it offers alot of staff pro's I see quiet a few player cons. If I was a clan Leutenant and I had been working with the same IMM for two months and things were running very smoothly, I would be a bit odd for me to continue my ideas in the same format with this new IMM...what if the new IMM hates the direction you have been going for two months and dosent agree the way the last IMM did? I dont really care for the idea.

[Agent_137]

I think a longer rotation time would somewhat lessen the cons, though not eliminate them.

I also think it's worth a try. If everyone comes to hate it, put them back with their original clans.

[Morfeus]

I honestly do not like this idea at all. I was in a clan which changed IMMs more than once during time I played in it (with a very long lived character), and it was very awkward for me as a player. The new IMM needed time to learn details about the clan, needed time to learn about current plots and also about my reasoning for actions of my character, sometime they dislike ideas which previous IMM liked, NPCs suddenly acted differently, didn't know about things they used to know before...
Therefore however I see some pros for this idea, I do not like it.

[drunken bard]

Personally, I am strongly against such an idea.

I have been involved in clans who have gone through multiple imm swaps in the duration of my PC. I've seen the effect this has (a new imm a month for Kadius back in '97? horror). As it stands now (and please, no one on staff take this the wrong way, it is not an accusation) you have a good many imms running clans who really don't know a lot about the clan. I've had clan imms ask me for information about clans I was in in the past. This is mostly the case when you find staff members taking charge of a clan. There's a long growing period, and things can grow stagnant in that time. Less gets done. Things goals/plots get sidetracked if not dropped all together. IC conflict come up because one staff member has a different notion of running a clan than another (I remember a case where a new staff member came on to a clan I was in, and had to completely rework a 6 month character because they wanted things done differently). And personally, even with the lesser amount of swapping that occurs now, I think it has been detrimental. Most clans no longer have a sense of "clan"... they're just jobs. Way to get food and coin.

Some of the pros you mentioned for going to a higher swapping system.... Staff members getting attached and protective. I think a degree of this is healthy. In the last few years, there seems to be very little interaction/conflict between clans, partly due to clans having multiple imms and all these imms in any clans that have interaction needing to agree on things... I think this has hurt the game. Again, no sense of "clan". Get some competition going, get some conflict going. I loved it back when clans had more of a sense of being a single entity.

Diversity... I touched on that earlier. A problem revamping things can often throw a major wrench in the works.

Overall game knowledge... Important, yes. But I would say that having detailed knowledge of the clan you are running is far, far more important.

Standardization... I think that's a pretty good thing, to a degree. Though I would think it would be easier to do this with long term clan imms, than short.

Cons....

Loss of continuity... I think this is a big thing. Even with the degree of period restructuring we have now, there seems to be a big lack of "the greater picture"

Administration, avatars, coming up to speed... I think it's safe to say that this process will take, at the minimum, several weeks. And likely a couple of months to get going in full. Lots of lost time.

Ownership... thumbs up, as mentioned above.

Assigned to a clan they don't care for... I was once in a clan where I knew the imm didn't want to be there. Emails went unanswered, requests left pending, to the point where clan members were in serious trouble.

Too many changes... I've seen it happen again and again. Every time a new imm takes over, they have at least a couple ideas, things they'd like to see done differently. Very very jolting to established clan members.

[Sanvean]

Just to clarify because of one of your objections - each clan would have a minimum of two staff associated with it, so at the time a new staff member came on board, there would already be someone in place who had been there for three months.  Wanted to make sure that's clear.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Certainly I've witnessed the harmful effects of a staff member getting too attached to a clan (No one messes with KURAC!) and thus refusing to hear out complaints of player twinkishness and allowing it to run rampant, and even in some cases allowing the use of NPCs to facilitate PKing, an activity that most clans disallow for very good reasons.

Furthermore, I've been playing Armageddon for five years, and there are some immortals who have been attached to the same clan for that entire period of time and probably longer.  Change helps a clan grow, and I would say that in this case, it's no different.

Six months might be slightly too short a period of time.  Eight perhaps?

This idea gets a big thumbs up from me.

[LoD]

I see advantages to this in another format.

I am with Desertman that a 6 month rotation that completely changed the face of the Imm Staff behind your clan would lead to a lot of potential arguements between the old and new Imm-Player administrational styles.

However, I think a system like this that involved some kind of overlap might be better.  Perhaps something like:

Imm A & B run House Salarr and the Guild together.
(6) Months Pass : Imm B leaves and Imm C becomes new clan Imm.
Imm A & C run House Salarr and the Guild together.
(6) Months Pass : Imm A leaves and Imm D becomes new clan Imm.
Imm C & D run House Salarr and the Guild together.

That would allow you to have a consistent Imm for at least 1 year and the new Imm would be able to have something of a mentor from soneone who had been working with the clan for 6 months already and can describe what is going on, what direction they are going, etc...

-LoD

[Tamarin]

I'm in love with my current clan imm, and if you take her from me, I'm going to throw a hissy fit.

If that weren't the case, then yeah I'd probably support this.

[mansa]

Immortals wouldn't know the 'characters' as well as they would if they have been watching them for a full year.

This problem, I think, will be helped with the latest Biography feature.  Long term players will now have a massive huge feature to help those immortals just switched over to their new clans.  But it still is a major problem.

New immortals will have a conflict with current characters, when current characters -know more- than immortals with regards to the clans.

The only way to help this is to have better modes of communication between players and staff.


However.

I love this idea.

[Morfeus]

Well, I am trying to imagine the situation: I app for a sponsored role, two IMMs agree with my ideas. I start. One of IMMs leaves three weeks after I start, new IMM doesn't like my ideas at all. Six months later the second IMM leaves as well and now both of IMMs dislike the concept I run....

There is one more problem I see: some IMMs are on only in peaks, some are not. I'd not like to see suddenly being without support of NPCs just because the IMM who used to help me in clan suddenly left.

[Marauder Moe]

As you said, each clan tends to have two immortals.  Each immortal also seems to mange two clans at a time as well.

Perhaps a hybrid system might be better?  Each immortal has one permanent clan they're responsible for and one rotational clan that changes every few months.  This way you have both the consistency of a permanent immortal but also the 'breath of fresh air' new ideas and such from the rotational immortal.

[Delirium]

A more detailed list later, but one of the major cons for me is a loss of continuity.  

Especially as long-lived players in a clan, you find that in a lot of ways, your truly long term relationships end up being with NPCs.  I've already seen this happen in some respects with NPC guards that my character befriended along with the person they guarded - once that PC stops using that NPC, it's like your relationship with that NPC never existed.  You develop some history and a connection with the roleplay of a certain animated character or superior that is usually handled by a specific immortal, and that strikes me as difficult to continue with a completely different immortal without losing something.  There might be inside jokes or past events that you refer to and the new immortal has to go "wait, I'm not sure I knew about this yet" or maybe the NPC has a shift in attitude or whatever, and probably unavoidably, a shift in playstyle.  Maybe that doesn't seem like a big deal to most people, but I thought it was worth bringing up, since, whether NPC or PC, if they are a part of your character's story, it makes it awkward and/or difficult when they get a "reworking" so to speak.

[Morfeus]

As you said, each clan tends to have two immortals.  Each immortal also seems to mange two clans at a time as well.

Perhaps a hybrid system might be better?  Each immortal has one permanent clan they're responsible for and one rotational clan that changes every few months.  This way you have both the consistency of a permanent immortal but also the 'breath of fresh air' new ideas and such from the rotational immortal.

Sometimes, the simplest ideas are the best ones.

[Cuusardo]

I don't like the idea of rotating clans, and I base this on my personal experience.  It seems to me that a clan will run much more smoothly if the same IMM(s) are in charge of it.  (Yes, I know IMMs can come and go.  That's a whole different story.)

 I was in a clan with a long lived PC that came to be a leader.  The same IMM was in charge of that clan for most of the time that I was in it, and then suddenly that IMM left, and someone else took over.  It was quite frustrating, for several reasons.

:arrow: Npcs were being roleplayed differently.  It is extremely jarring to have a long standing rapport of a certain type with an NPC, and then one day the NPC has a completely different personality.  This disrupts game play, and can make adjustment very difficult.

:arrow: The new IMMs had little to no idea what the clan's PCs had done and accomplished in the past  I had to send an email to them with a whole huge list of things my PC had done, what its goals were, etc, etc because the new IMMs had no idea.

:arrow: And there's the simple fact that no two IMMs will run a clan the same way.  The lack of consistency hinders roleplay, because all the PCs are trying to catch up to what the IMMs are doing, and the IMMs are trying to catch up to what the PCs have been doing.

In my opinion, consistency is the key to keeping clans running smoothly.  Change is very difficult for both the players and the IMMs.

[amoeba]

I would give qualified support of this.   I think it would be imparitive to have overlapping imm support, where the shifts were staggered in and out so that there would always be an IMM who was well filled in on the history and plots.

Some advantages I would think would be breaking up some of the enivitable player/IMM cliques that crop up.  It is human nature for similar views and personalities to connect, but long term this -can- have a detrimental effect on the game and other players.  I'm not citing any particular incidents that I know of, but it is possible for some players to develop a close relationship with thier clan IMMs and find themselves falling into the jucier of plots more often.  Nothing nefarious here, just human nature.

It has also bothered me to not see NPC leadership aging and moving on as would happen in real life.  Moving IMMs in and out of the clans, can and in some ways should include rotating the NPCs out of power.  Yes this means more documentation work, but I think the outcome is worth it.

Putting new people in also can revitalize enthusiasm.  New challanges, new ideas.   I do dislike hard and fast rules though. If the clan is on a particular upswing, upseting the cart by slamming a new IMM in can do more harm than good, so the plan needs considerable flexiblity.

[moab]

Change is good and as long as there is the switching of one of the pair of staff at a time (as Sanvean mentioned), I think this is good.

[Malifaxis]

I would love to see a staggered shifting, with one staffer being in for a full year, so that new staff can rotate in and learn all the plotlines, etc that are currently happening.

Multiple times (like at least five) I have joined a clan, become part of SomethingAwesome(tm) and then suddenly had the staffer who was the main force of that SA(tm) bail due to RL problems... and no one knew what the heck was going on.

I am very much for this idea, but communication is essential.

[ale six]

I also don't like this because of the continuity issue.

While I wouldn't mind more of a "collective" approach to clan management to help the times when some imms are unavailable, I think that all clans should still have primary staffers who can be the go-to people and the ones who control NPC animations, etc.

Lots of other people have posted dissents that I mostly agree with.

Maybe, if more staff involvement across all clans was desired, the way clan reporting is done could be changed? For example, instead of having Vanth be the only contact for House Nenyuk, make a housenenyuk@armageddon.org email address for people to send reports/questions/etc too. Vanth would still be the primary staffer for Nenyuk, but if Naiona, Sanvean, and Halaster wanted to help out too, they could add themselves to the list and know what was going on. If Vanth was too busy to log in for two weeks, other people keeping tabs on Nenyuk could still fill in.

That sounds like a lot more backend work on you guys' part, and it may not really address the reasons this was proposed for... but anyway, I wouldn't like such a fluctuating staff.

[buzz]

Maybe, if more staff involvement across all clans was desired, the way clan reporting is done could be changed? For example, instead of having Vanth be the only contact for House Nenyuk, make a housenenyuk@armageddon.org email address for people to send reports/questions/etc too. Vanth would still be the primary staffer for Nenyuk, but if Naiona, Sanvean, and Halaster wanted to help out too, they could add themselves to the list and know what was going on. If Vanth was too busy to log in for two weeks, other people keeping tabs on Nenyuk could still fill in.

While it's a minor derailment, I love this idea.  And I think it'd be absolutely necessary for Sanvean's idea.  I don't remember to cc: the right people normally, especially when other clans are involved.  How the hell would I be expected to remember, for example, that Adhira isn't the Atrium imm any more, when I'm playing in Salarr?

As for the idea in general ... Other people have said what I would.  The change in styles and discontinuity would concern me.

[Morfeus]

I like alesix' idea, but I don't think it solves the main trouble - I would not expect the new IMM is going to read -all- emails on that adress. Not even all emails from last half-year. Thinking about it, even emails from last two weeks might be too much.

[da mitey warrior]

I think it'd be a good thing.  New staff, like new players, breaths life into clans and bring new ideas and energy.   Also, having a finite time to run the clan might be good, since they'll know they only have a limited time to get things done.  Fewer big, unworkable projects and more insentive to get smaller plots off the ground quicker!

I've been in clans where the Imm has changed and it hasn't been a big deal.  I'd really recomend that new imms make a new supervisor npc whenever possible, because using it's wierd to have well known npcs go through wild personality changes.  

The average life of a PC, even a sponsored role in an clan, is only about 3 months anyways.  So it's not like there'll be a great deal of upheaval in most PC's lives.

[marko]

I would give this idea qualified support so long as there were better procedures followed to insure continuality.  These procedures would include more information recorded about what the Clan PCs have been doing - perhaps some sort of wikki / blog for each clan where PC Reports get filed along with immortal responses.

One of my concerns is that some people don't quite "get" certain clans so there may be moments of confusion and apparent "wrongness" about how certain interactions are handled at the start.  This tends to happen not so much because of knowledge or lack thereof but of personality.  I know there are some roles that I just plain suck at and some roles I completely excel at.  The same goes for handling clans.  Having a second imm watching and probably some highlord oversight would mitigate this and it would probably vanish over time.

There is a continual belief amongst many players that certain clans are sacrosanct and inviolate.  This type of yearly rotation would certainly help to alleviate that belief.  

Overall - I believe that if there was some sort of backend that recorded events (even minor events) within a clan so a new imm can review them and get up to date quickly then this rotation could work out great.  I will admit to having some reservations about clans losing imms that _really_ know them inside and out for someone fresh to the clan - but... I think overall it might be for the better.

[Cuusardo]

The average life of a PC, even a sponsored role in an clan, is only about 3 months anyways.  So it's not like there'll be a great deal of upheaval in most PC's lives.

I don't think this is true at all.

[Morfeus]

The average life of a PC, even a sponsored role in an clan, is only about 3 months anyways.  So it's not like there'll be a great deal of upheaval in most PC's lives.

I don't think this is true at all.

I was just thinking - I am very off average then.  :twisted:

[Raesanos]

While it's a minor derailment, I love this idea.  And I think it'd be absolutely necessary for Sanvean's idea.  I don't remember to cc: the right people normally, especially when other clans are involved.  How the hell would I be expected to remember, for example, that Adhira isn't the Atrium imm any more, when I'm playing in Salarr?

Is there a problem with http://www.armageddon.org/ic ?

[Rindan]

Perhaps a method of doing this is to have an in-between period.  So, if someone is moving from Kurac to House Borsail, they spend a month doing both houses.  This way, they can teach can bring their replacement up to speed slowly and be brought up to speed slowly in their new clan.  Making people move every 6 months might be a little extreme, but making one of the clans imms move every 6-9 months might not be a bad idea.  So, if there are three imms in a clan, it would take 18 months to fully rotate everyone out.
 
One worry I would have is that some people are given clans they don't want.  I know there are certain character types that I would rather not play.  I imagine the same could be said for certain clans.  Dumping a clan on someone who doesn't want it is a pretty sure fire way to make people not want to log on.  I would really try and work within everyone's preferences as much as possible instead of setting up a strict rotation.  I don't think it would be a terrible tragedy of one imm always rotated between the same 5 clans that he likes, instead of hitting up every single one.

I do see the benefits, but I think communication is the real issue.  If there is good communication within the staff, I think this could be pulled off well.  If the communication is spotty, this could be a recipe for some ugliness.  Making sure that communication lines and documentation are shored up would go a long way to making something like this work.

I really like the idea on principle.  I could see this giving new energy to different clans as people rotate in and out with new ideas.  I think the real question is if the communication lines and the documentation exist to ensure smooth transitions.  Obviously, this is a question that only the staff can answer.

[Lazloth]

The average life of a PC, even a sponsored role in an clan, is only about 3 months anyways.  So it's not like there'll be a great deal of upheaval in most PC's lives.

I don't think this is true at all.

Yeah, it's probably much less.

I am totally in love with this proposal and [in my head] the pros heavily outweigh the cons.

Addendum:  I've been in situations where clan "ownership" has changed before, and while it's jarring when new ideas and approaches proliferate, as has been mentioned in this thread - if staff and player remain receptive to communication, short-term issues with unexpected kinks find a way of working out.  I think clan evolution greatly benefits from varied modes of attention.

To Delirium's point - loss of immediate NPC continuity:  I agree, and perhaps something as simple as a changing of the guard (no pun intended) would (a.) breathe in new energy for the players affected, (b.) help alleviate the shift in new management.  Your boss may get promoted (and you not!), assassinated, whatever:  some IC action that can positively or negatively affect your career, tie in plots, further clan history, etc.

[proxie]

Hmmm. I have mixed thoughts on this.

I recently spent a while in a clan, where the imms shuffled in and out, while one remained constant. That wasn't a problem, but then, another imm came in and started settling in for a long work with the clan. Again, no problem.

However, NPC's that were previously cordial, approving, and in general liked my PC and were sources of vast knowledge to my PC suddenly became hostile and critical and disapproving, to the point where I asked the imms if this was supposed to happen or if I should consider this NPC being affected by something mindbenderish or magicky.  

So, if this idea is put into place, then the NPCs need to either be consistant or each Imm needs to put in new NPC's that are designed to act within their own style and constraights, so that the known NPC's aren't suddenly acting like they've been taken over by someone evil.

The sudden loss in consistancy made me question my roleplay and whether this PC was a good match for the clan. Which was sad because I'd put considerable RL time into her, and yet good, because I was able to move on and am now playing something fresh and new, with amounts of joy that would probably not be there were I still playing that previous PC.

Proxie

[Seeker]

Most of my concerns have already been covered by others (mostly the ones dealing with continuity issues and long-lived PCs, and the possibility of apparently schizophrenic-seeming NPCs and institutions) but I'll toss out a couple of new topics.

Some IMMs are on a different time zone.  Their clans seem to manage to attract and retain off-peak players, and this works out well for everyone.  A bit odd, on an OOC level, but still useful.  Off-peakers might suffer when they are left high and dry in a clan when the rotation hits.

Some players just don't enjoy the company of certain IMMs and vice versa.  This entirely removes the chance of them applying a little polite consideration and just avoiding each other.

Some parts of the game (eq. the entire desert elf cultures, tribal interrelationships, frictions, and developed histories) might be a bit much to master in a couple of months and then not be active with for four years until the rotation completes for the staff.

As a suggestion, some of the clans already have a "semi-permanent" staff advisor available.  Perhaps -every- clan, in a rotation plan, should have such a permanent fixture to allow more retention of continuity?  Even if largely a background position, it might be a help.


Seeker

As a side-note, some of the very best interactions I had came only because of having a long-term IMM overlooking one of my character's slow, slow development arcs.  Knowing that someone on staff knew that character's foibles almost as well as I did myself made it entertaining on a whole new level to run him.  I would miss that, I think.

[mansa]

While it's a minor derailment, I love this idea.  And I think it'd be absolutely necessary for Sanvean's idea.  I don't remember to cc: the right people normally, especially when other clans are involved.  How the hell would I be expected to remember, for example, that Adhira isn't the Atrium imm any more, when I'm playing in Salarr?

Is there a problem with http://www.armageddon.org/ic ?

What's wrong?  I'm lazy.  I just want to pick one email address and not have to worry about going to a web page to find out who to email.  

I wonder how easy it would be to automate the change of ownership of houseborsail@armageddon.org .

[spawnloser]

I will start with, I love the idea for all the reasons listed as pros.

I don't like it for the cons listed, but the biggest one is the continuity.  I think the rest will resolve themselves with some hassel, yes, but not too much, and once the groundwork is set up, later work will not be as much.

I like the idea of having mail lists for clans, but as long as members of clans are told when one of their IMMs changes, they know to check the ic page or update their own personal mail lists.

I am also in favor of slightly longer stints in individual clans.  Since most IMMs are partly responsible for two clans at a time.  I like having them in each for one year's time.  Each IMM switches only one of their clans at each switch time to minimize the amount they have to pick up on in the new clan.  In the new clan, the IMM being joined should have been there six months, to maximize understanding of that clan already present.

In response to player grievances about continuity, I suggest using the 'bio' command to include things about notable NPCs that your character knows and how the characters interact.  That way a new IMM coming in will know what's going on with your character after reading the bio entries.  I would also suggest being truthful in your bios, as far as you understand.

[editted to add:] Oh, and just to be clear...after the cons are analyzed, they carry less weight than the pros to me, so I'm in favor of this idea on the whole.

[HunterKiller]

Do it.  Same ole shit = bad.  New pup on the block nobody likes with new ideas = good.

I think the only danger is in all the clans being too similar to each other because somebody comes up with a good idea and everyone tries to copy it.

- HK

[Tamarin]

I'm in support of this idea if player run plots are given much more prevalence over the designs of the staff.  That way, the continuity rests with the players being able to drive the world, and not the other way around.

[Folker]

I enjoy the idea, but I would emphasize the two posts made before me. One about the novelty of the continual shift to be a good thing, even if it a price (Hopefully, the price like that will go on for a ... year, and afterwards each IMM will gain enough background experience in every clan) But another emphasis is on requirement to make certain that player ran plots are paramount to those of the IMM ones. So the 6 (or is it three? you said six originally, then said three later Sanvean) month shift doesnt turn into plague where every character concept ends up dying off/retiring because a new IMM suddenly arrived.

[Lazloth]

But another emphasis is on requirement to make certain that player ran plots are paramount to those of the IMM ones. So the 6 (or is it three? you said six originally, then said three later Sanvean) month shift doesnt turn into plague where every character concept ends up dying off/retiring because a new IMM suddenly arrived.

I find this view extremely narrow and egocentric, and hope I'm not the minority.  I won't pretend to guess at the planning that goes behind some of the IMM-run plotlines, but I would retch if some built-up story that affects the larger playerbase is shelved because your templar/noble's greenhouse project has a higher priority.

[Vesperas]

As you said, each clan tends to have two immortals.  Each immortal also seems to mange two clans at a time as well.

Perhaps a hybrid system might be better?  Each immortal has one permanent clan they're responsible for and one rotational clan that changes every few months.  This way you have both the consistency of a permanent immortal but also the 'breath of fresh air' new ideas and such from the rotational immortal.

I really like this alteration.  It would help alleviate most of the concerns that players against the original idea are having, in my opinion.

I would actually like to see a little rotation of some kind through the clans -- but, the main reason I'm supporting this is for the tantalizing chance of greater, more uprooting conflicts.  The longer I play Armageddon, the more I slowly see stagnation in things (most likely because I'm becoming more familiar with the game, and am getting used to seeing certain things) -- this shouldn't be the case.  If I don't play a clan for a while, I don't want to return to it to see that nothing has changed.  It takes the adventure and fun out of discovery.  I would like to see more dirty politics, economics, and competition between clans (let alone city-states).

I think it would also help to keep things fresh as far as NPCs and documentation goes.  And perhaps, given time, as immortals are rotated through the clans, they will learn about all the clans and be able to switch between them more easily.

[X-D]

Love it love it love it.

Lets go with it the way LoD posted.

Cuts out most peoples arguements anyway, specialy on loss of continuity in npc's and such.

Since A and B start together and hopefully work together, when A leaves and C comes in, C gets to basicly apprentice to B learning how the NPC's and such are played. Not to mention fresh ideas and such from C.

Plus, I think even the staffers would, for the most part have more fun in the long run, being involved with and learning even more of the game and game world. Better chance of more even spread of karma for the players too, or at least of being seen, since many players complain that they don't think they are watched enough.

Summery

BIG THUMBS UP!

[ArmWindworn]

Npcs were being roleplayed differently. It is extremely jarring to have a long standing rapport of a certain type with an NPC, and then one day the NPC has a completely different personality. This disrupts game play, and can make adjustment very difficult.

 Heh.. have IMM's use Biography for NPC's with entries for PCs that they have regular contact with

[mansa]

Npcs were being roleplayed differently. It is extremely jarring to have a long standing rapport of a certain type with an NPC, and then one day the NPC has a completely different personality. This disrupts game play, and can make adjustment very difficult.

 Heh.. have IMM's use Biography for NPC's with entries for PCs that they have regular contact with

MY GOD THAT'S GENIUS!

You're promoted, ArmWindworn.  You're now my lieutenant.

[Aldiel]

I like this idea in this effect.
:arrow: One Permanent Imm
:arrow: One Rotating Imm With a Min Rotation Time of Six Months

[Ghost]

I love the idea of rotating imms.  Six months sound good to me.  Some people said a little longer periods would do better, like eight months.  Still fine.  Six month or eight month, it sounds lovely.

Rindan's idea of making an in-between period is a sound one, I think.  It would ease the problem with continuity.  Perhaps the new imms will get an idea, how the NPC had been running, how the clan had been running previously and will get adapted more easily?

I love the idea of rotation.

[X-D]

I don't like the idea of one perm imm one rotating imm.
No point in bothering then as its close to what we have now.
Second, that makes the rotating staffers -always- secondary, again, no point in bothering then.

As to time period, I like six months, but eight months is alright I guess, a year is too long.

Remember all, even if the time is six months, that still gives a single staffer one full year on a clan.

[path]

I like the rotating. I think any freshness or inspiration it could bring to the clans and plotlines far outweight the cons, especially as apparently continuity can be worked around in the way they switch shifts.

I also have a sense of stagnation and I suspect, for the staff, it might be difficult to keep a clan running in any cool direction when people keep twinking around, acting incomprehensibly and dying, so maybe switching things up could keep the faith strong and the.. staff from being jaded.

As far as player run plotlines vs. staff run plotlines.. I'm not totally sure I agree. I guess it's good for the players to have priority in their plotlines, as long as it doesn't break any of the obvious layout of the game or require too much imm support.

[Aldiel]

I don't think you have ever agreed with me X-D.     I went back and reread some of the other posts, I like this idea of a three part rotation with one imm remaining behind to be an advisor too.  However, whatever you do, I think an imms should stay in one place for at least six months to a year.

[Maybe42or54]

I liked the idea, then didn't, but I finally believe I like it.
Since everyone knows we like to huddle around those active imms. When those active imms move around, they bring their new clan to life again.

Just one thing, I'd like to add.

The imms would pick up to 8 clans, and no less than 5 to switch between. So that they don't completely forget what they learned and they can stay in the circle of clans they enjoy being apart of. I don't want it to be a chore if they are imming on a house they don't like.

[RunningMountain]

I would totally be for this idea just because it removes the whole 'conflict of interest' in a lot of situations. I'm damn disgruntled though no matter what happens with staff policy.

[Dakkon Black]

I've really mulled over this one for a long time, and there are cons, but maybe, just maybe they do really do get overrun by the pro's.

The most glaring example I can think of is a situation where a long time PC in a house was about to leave it. The Imm's knew, they were emailed about it, and literally moments before it happened, that PC was invited into a room and summarily executed. Two npc's and another PC.

For various IC reasons, even that scene could have been done much differently. It could have been done in ways that made some much better rp. Hunting down a traitor? All kinds of things, but I can only see the way it was handled was oh quick, get rid of them so they don't hurt the house.

It wasn't Rp'd well.
It wasn't handled with any realism.
It was clearly set to play on ooc reaction time, not IC.
It didn't serve to further any plots.
It didn't serve to assist in any rp.
It didn't create any new story.
It simply killed a long lived PC so that the house looked good.

Since that I've had a serious issue with trusting Imm's with information about what I want to do IC. Do I feel sad about that. Yeah. Do I think that it would be nice to know that this IMM is getting my emails so that they can track the RP happening IC and FOSTER it, CREATE stories, OPEN up new opportunities. YES!

This is a gritty, brutal world, I love the fact that I can die, and die at any time. Hell, it's the reason I come back over and over, to see if I can manage to survive another day. I'm okay with getting offed, I'm really ok with loosing a massive amount of time and effort in a bad situation. But you'd think that they coulda thrown an emote out first.

Go Kurac.

[Twilight]

I don't like it for the loss of history.  Sure, some stuff gets written down, but a lot doesn't.

Try imagine running something like Blackwing with a couple of imms, the most experienced one being three months?  I mean, as it is with rotations the history is already fragmented.  Who knows about what happened in Tor seven (rl, yes rl) years ago?  Or in Tuluk before the destruction?

I've always been pretty happy with imms leading clans knowledge of recent events (1 to 2 rl years), moderately frustrated for medium term knowledge (2-5 years) and definately frustrated when it comes to old knowledge (5-14 years).  This plan would just compound that, and fracture what history there is.

Maybe that is okay.  Maybe we want to like in the last 1-2 years.  But I'd rather like to think it at least possible to dredge up the dark, terrible secrets of the last couple of Ages.

[flurry]

I've given this some thought and I thought I'd share my perspecitve on this.

To begin with, I like playing in clans.  I also tend to have long-lived characters.  So I am interested in seeing what comes of this discussion.

On the one hand, I do have some of the continuity concerns that others expressed.  I'm a little concerned about the example Sanvean posted because if I understand it correctly (and I might not), if you join a clan, all of those clan immortals would cycle out within six months.  Not all at once, but still.  That seems really fast - I just imagine playing for a long time in one clan and seeing that turnover multiple times.  

I wouldn't really say I personally have had these continuity issues affect me in a major way.  I did have one time when I had a goal for a PC that I was (OOCly) really excited about, but probably required some significant immortal help.  I felt like I was starting to get that until the clan immortals changed, and definitely felt a different reception of the idea, which ended up going no where.  At least that was my perspective on it.   It wasn't any of the immortals' fault at all, and I don't have bad feelings over how it was handled, but it was just disappointing because I really thought it had some great potential and I felt like the change in staff ended up hurting its chances.   I only mention this as another example of the kind of thing that could be an issue when there is clan staff turnover.

All of that said, I really think it is important to have some kind of rotation.  Or even just some kind of "term limit" on how long a staff member could be with one clan.  I see a lot more potential for problems with too much stagnation than with too much changing.   I think this is especially a potential problem with staff becoming overprotective about "their" clan and putting the good of the clan over the good of the game.  

One other related issue (that I didn't see much mention of) is of players and immortals that just don't mesh well.   This could be over a variety of things - different styles, different expectations, past disagreements, etc.  The reason I mention it here is because I think if immortals move around with some regularity, some players may feel like they have more options open to them.   This isn't an issue for me, but I see it as another potential problem with too much stasis.

[ale six]

After a while of having a certain staffer animate an npc for me, I begin to get used to their style and enjoy it - so much that when some other staffer animates the npc, even if there's no loss of information, the simple things like changes in emote and speech patterns get jarring for me.

Is there really a legitimate issue over stagnation in clans if staff stick around them for too long? I wouldn't have expected anything like that. Call me idealistic, but I also thought the staff cooperated up there among plotlines - just because one imm is the listed contact for one clan, I didn't think they were the only one who had a say over what plots got run and what affected their clan.

It feels like some people think certain imms are out to get them and happily munch on their characters if their PCs try and betray their clan. Is that really true? Even if it was, I don't see how rotating people around would fix it.

And also... suppose certain players didn't get along with certain staff for whatever reason. As it is now, if you feel like Halaster is out to kill all your pcs, you can just avoid his one or two clans and be okay. But if imms rotate, you might join a certain clan with imms you like, and then a few months later, people shift... and look out! It's Halaster coming to get you!

I'm still pretty happy with how things are.

[Larrath]

A note for this entire post - everything I say here is based wholly on my opinions and personal impressions.  It's very possible that I'm completely mistaken in many points I raise here, and no offense is intended for anyone at all.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see one or two staffers assigned permanently to each clan, and maybe have a rotation of other staffers among the other clans.

There are two major problems that make this solution not probable:
First, some clans are more popular than other clans.  If there were lists where staffers had to sign in their names in order to be assigned to them, the Arm of the Dragon would probably get a dozen candidates while the Soh Lanah Kah d-elf tribe, or House Kadius, would probably get four (if even that).  Some clans are more popular than other clans - this is true with players and I'm sure that it's also true with staffers.  To remedy this, the less popular clans need to be looked at, and possibly even be redesigned until they become sufficiently awesome.

The second major problem is favoritism.  However, I think it's a big mistake to say "each staffer will only have X months in charge of the clan so they don't develop favoritism".  The problem with favoritism is that, at least to some level, it's actually allowed to exist.  There needs to be some method to seriously bring favoritism under control.
I'm of the opinion that if a staff member abuses OOC information in order to benefit their favorite clan, they simply have no place being a staff member.

So how can favoritism be brought under control?  Maybe a Highlord-level staffer can play police officer.  Maybe Storytellers can be required to post a summary or a report every X days or whenever they are involved in any PC death, or whenever a plot ends.
None of these ideas seem perfect (or even very good) to me, but the fact stands - the problem isn't that some staff members can develop unfair favoritism for their clan.
The problem is that favoritism can exist and pass mostly undetected.  This is what needs to be fixed.  Favoritism extends beyond clan assignments, and without favoritism, the suggested form of clan rotations wouldn't be needed.

[Anonymous]

As a player I hate clan leadership turnover with a passion, especially with a long-lived character because management styles and goals are never consistent from one immortal to the next.  It's frustrating in the extreme to have an NPC treat and expect certain things from you one day and then two months later the same guy is completely different.

Even if the staffmember creates their own NPC to oversee things you still have a number of differences in how your interaction with the immortal themselves differs.  This is only a major factor when you've been having weekly interactions with the same immortal for a year.  Then, pop, someone new comes onto the scene looking to make their mark or change some of the clan's direction and you are left feeling very uprooted.

Changes in clan leadership are easily one of the most negative experiences I've had in this game.

[FightClub]

Maybe keeping the staff members who are primarily assigned to run the clan in place, while having a few staff members who rotate from clan to clan, taking on certain roles would be a good idea.

The thought of a clan losing its primary imm every so often, seems to be a bit too much.

Not to mention how mad players might get if the immortal in rotation to your clan was away on vacation for the duration of this, and ideas that were in current progress get deturred until next cycle...

Not enough pro's and too many con's in my opinion.

[UnderSeven]

My experience when staff rotate naturally, is that clans can get messed up.  When I encountered three differnet staff on the clan I was playing, I would say it literally destroyed my character.  All three staff had different ideas for how the clan should work, all three played the leader npcs who ordered my pc around differently. All three viewed my pc differently.  It was impossible to play and made me hate it every second.  

Favoritism maybe something we'll just have to live with, having two staff, where one rotates and the other doesn't might work, but a complete clean slate rotation..?  Might as well just kick all the pcs out of the clan at the same time while we're at it.

[spawnloser]

Doomsayers, chill.  There are ways to minimize the shock of the staff shifting around the clans.  I still say we do it.

Just because something didn't work once when it was probably not a scheduled and planned for thing...?  I mean, come on.  If it is well planned for, I think it'll be fine.

[bloodfromstone]

I personally really like having clan imms that I 'know' from the get go, and that learn to know my character and me. I don't really like the idea, but I'll deal with whatever.

[vissa]

I only have one real concern.  Some staff will give sponsored roles to off-peak players and some won't.  What happens to off-peak sponsored players in a clan when the former type of staff member is replaced by the latter?  And as the proposed changes will make this situation inevitable (as long as the sponsored character stays alive long enough), will all staff be less likely to give those roles to off-peak players as a result?

[Akaramu]

I only have one real concern.  Some staff will give sponsored roles to off-peak players and some won't.  What happens to off-peak sponsored players in a clan when the former type of staff member is replaced by the latter?  And as the proposed changes will make this situation inevitable (as long as the sponsored character stays alive long enough), will all staff be less likely to give those roles to off-peak players as a result?

A very valid concern. Having been in a leadership role at off-peak, I have to say I dont like the idea.

[Morfeus]

Just because something didn't work once when it was probably not a scheduled and planned for thing...?  I mean, come on.  If it is well planned for, I think it'll be fine.

Rereading the thread, it looks to me it happened more than once. Actually, I am surprised to see how many people were frustrated by such thing in the past and it just makes me more sure I don't like the idea.

[ShaiHulud]

I've been in two clans in the past that played musical immortals during the time I was involved in long term leadership roles in them.  I have to say it sucked.

[Intrepid]

Looking over the idea, it does seem to be a fresh approach to the situation
it's trying to solve, but the end result is that it's treating the symptoms
rather than providing a cure.  If a staff member is attached to one clan,
he/she will become attached to the next or become disinterested in that
clan's upkeep until a more "interesting" clan comes along.  I'm not saying
that this thinking happens among the staff, mind you, I'm just following
this line of thinking along a logical path.

All the Pros listed seem, in my opinion at least, to be things that can be
done even with the same imms running the clan without rotation.

The main Con that bothers me is the loss of continuity, which I believe to
be an irreparable problem even with a staggered system and massive
prep time.

[spawnloser]

I've been in a clan that had musical immortals too, and yes, it did suck.  Wanna know what, though?  I still think this will work with the proper implementation.

[Angela Christine]

Part of the problem with "musical immortals" is probably that it was not planned long in advance, it might work better if the rotation was part of the system.  With a planned, systemic rotation the staff involved would know that it was going to happen months in advance, and have plenty of time to get their paperwork (or electronic equivalent) in order.  Planned rotations might actually make the unavoidable abrupt changes that happen from time to time go more smoothly, because there would be a system in place for handing over the responsibility.  

I've heard that the greatest accomplishment of democracy is that it provides for the smooth transfer of power.  A dictator can be a very good leader, and can easily be more effective than a bunch of argumentative elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected in the short term than the long-term good of the country.  But when the charismatic dictator dies everything goes to shit as the various factions struggle for power.  A dictator who comes to power through revolution or coup leaves no legitimate way to transfer that power.  Even a long-standing monarchy is prone to periodic scuffles or civil wars when various heirs disagree or the reigning monarch is loony enough to inspire an insurrection.  Democracy has a handy method for transferring power and it is practiced at regular intervals, so if a leader does suddenly die or become unable to continue his duties we still don't get a civil war, some other guy steps up on an interim basis until the next election.  Life continues as normal.

Hopefully clan leadership never goes through coups or revolutions.    But practicing transferring leadership when it is not urgent can make it easier to transfer leadership when something unfortunate happens and the leader has to leave abruptly.


I like one year terms for clan imms.


Angela Christine

[EvilRoeSlade]

The main Con that bothers me is the loss of continuity, which I believe to be an irreparable problem even with a staggered system and massive prep time.

It's far from irreparable.  An immortal can keep a written detail on a certain NPCs personality and his dealings with various PCs, so it would be easy for the next immortal to pick up at the same place.  By utilizing the biography feature, this becomes simple and easy.

The same thing can be done for plotlines.

I don't doubt there have been many bad experiences with sudden shifts in immortals.  But Angela Christine is correct.  The reason that those experiences were bad was precisely because they were unplanned for.  An immortal suddenly retires, a clan is suddenly in limbo, and the new immortal comes on the scene with only fragmented knowledge of what went on prior to her arrival.  This is a problem.  A current problem that we are facing now.

People argue against this proposition because they don't like change.  Nobody does, it's human nature.  But a change in clan immortals will be a fact for clanned players in Armageddon even if this change does not occur.  This is simply a way to make it more smooth and graceful, and thus eliminating the stress that change can cause for both players and immortals.

[X-D]

I've (with one exception) never been in a clan that had the same imms at the end of my time there that it had at the beginning.

I have been in clans with multiple shifts, and yes, it was annoying, but I saw it only so because it was unplanned, nothing was in place to help the new imm with continuity or anything, I got the feeling that the imms was Tossed into the position with a simple, "heres the docs, sink or swim"

I think that planned rotations would actually, in the long run solve this problem.

First, help would be in place.
Second an unscheduled change would be handled much more smoothly since most likley one staffer with some exp with that clan would still be there.
Third, Odds are, on an unscheduled change, you would be able to find a staffer with exp in that clan because of rotation to fill the spot smoothly..

Fact is, staff changes happen all the time already.

Will there be problems, sure. but I think the long term benefits far outway them.

[ShaiHulud]

I've been in a clan that had musical immortals too, and yes, it did suck.  Wanna know what, though?  I still think this will work with the proper implementation.

You're right.  I don't think the changes I experienced in the past were intended, but of necessity.  A planned change would be better.  No fault.
I like the idea.

Versatility of staff
Staff don't get bored
new/fresh perceptions to clans
players are involved with more staff
staff are involved with more players
If one imm don't like me...stick around he'll be gone in six months? *joke*