Player-Driven Is the New Black: But How to Wear It?

[Gimfalisette]

DISCUSSION BACKGROUND

Back in February 2009, staff made a significant policy change:

Staff will no longer be animating the 'big boss' and senior NPCs of the clans for report ins and general catch ups. When a player needs information from the higher ranks of the house this will, in general, be given via email.

Staff instead will be concentrating on facilitating the stories that players are creating. The overall goal is that gameplay happens at a level that is accessible to players, allowing them to feel a very real part of the action.

...

This change does not mean that the House structure, ranks and goals go away. The npcs can still come out, if needed, what we don't want is staff tied up for 2 hours listening to a report that they read all about in email. This type of interaction, while often appreciated by staff and players, could be better replaced by more active animations – those boss npcs might still turn up to give you a promotion, bitch you out or just surprise you by having a drink at the bar.

How will players know what they can do, if we don't have the NPCs to tell them?

This is an area for us to work on. One thing that has been suggested is making up 'job descriptions', or guides, for the different types of sponsored or leader roles. For example your Merchant might be told that he has the right to:
- Hire crafters
- Hire an assistant
- Arrange for hunters to seek out specialist resources to make goods
- Hire the byn to assist in expeditions
- Work on trade partnerships with fellow merchants in other houses
- Work with enterprising independents to 'incorporate' their goods into the house lines
- Research new product lines

And so on. By giving you guys a better idea of what you have authority over we hope that you'll then have more confidence to do these (and other) things.

...

If staff are only facilitating what the players do what happens to all their cool ideas?

The idea here is to move away from large, preplanned plots for clans towards plots that are based on what the players are doing or interested in. We already do a good deal of this, by freeing ourselves up from some of the 'overhead' of administrative animating for clans we're hoping to give staff more time to do these stories.

What this doesn't mean is that we never get to come up with plot ideas or stories, instead we take the ideas, or the impetus, from the players and work from there.

Does that mean there's no big plots, only small stories? I like the huge stuff!

While we want to focus our attentions on making the game more player driven as staff we still need to share a vision for the game. There will always be a need for oversight and direction at the macro level, what we want to make sure is that most of the action plays out at the micro level, where the players are, rather than up high where you are more observer than participant.

There was some discussion immediately upon implementation and up through May, here: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,34249.50.html

Players were having a variety of experiences; there were many random animations at first, then not many. Some players felt that the change was having a good effect for them, others were not seeing any change.

I perceive that this uneasiness and uncertainty with the new system has persisted amongst players:

Some players get a lot of attention, but some get very little staff support or attention.

Just out of pure curiosity ... has anyone seen this?

My one gripe with the situation is that facilitation seems to have been replaced with 'stopping at all cost'. 'Realistic response' has become 'failure'.

This is how I feel.  Additionally...

50% of the reason that I don't play Arm anymore is that feels so stagnant and in many cases doesn't live up to its promise.  It's supposed to be open-ended but a majority of players ultimately aren't able to do what they want to do.  We're bound by the code and we can't interact with the world on the level we want to.

Um. I have never experienced the inability to push things through... at all. As long as a thing made sense, and was possible, it was okay to go for it.

I've had the complete opposite problem. I feel like I'm not doing as much as the staff and game world are making me capable of doing!

Having just come off about 8 months of staffing independents, the Byn, Bards, and the Guild I can pretty honestly say never once was a plot idea e-mailed to us that we said "no" to.

I don't mean to presume, but from conversations I have had with people about these sorts of feelings out of the game, it seems that a lot set their expectations too high.

I can't say that staff has ever said no to me, but they've never hesitated in being 'realistic' about any negative retaliation that my character would suffer. Which is fine. But never once, not once, have I ever experienced a 'realistic' positive retaliation from the staff as a result of my plans.

And that's the problem, really.

My expectations were running way too high recently, so I took a step back and lowered them. That isn't to say you shouldn't have expectations and goals, they just have to be realistic. Shoot for the stars, and if you're -very- lucky, you might just reach the moon.

DISCUSSION

Based on what the players have been saying, and my own experiences, I believe that collectively, we players have not fully adjusted to this change yet. I believe it is also possible that staff has not fully adjusted to the change, but that is just speculation. We are together moving from a mindset where staff presents all the important plots, to one where the impetus for important plots primarily comes from the players; and that is a huge change indeed.

I would like to discuss and share our strategies, tips, tricks for navigating this change and taking the fullest advantage of what is available to us now, as players and leaders.

What strategies have you used for creating and moving plots that have been successful in this new environment? What have you tried that has not been successful? What level of plot (personal, organizational, inter-organizational, world) have you felt most successful in moving? As always, please keep IC information out of your sharing.

How have you changed as a player, for good or ill, with these changes? Do you see further opportunities for growth for yourself, and how do you plan to achieve that?

How has your relationship to staff changed, and how do you feel about that?

What advice would you give to a newbie leader now in ARM? How is that different from what you might have said a year ago?

Please keep this thread civil and free of staff- or player-bashing. That is not the purpose here; I am looking to improve my own play and adjust to these changes, and other players may need help as well.

[UnderSeven]

Personally this change meant little to me, I am one of the players who tended to avoid staff interaction.  

To me armageddon is a game about interaction between people and staff are there to maintain a game world, not be a regular part of that interaction.  I have always molded my role play around interacting with other characters and only speaking to staff when I specifically needed or wanted something that only they could provide.  

To me the new system just evens the playing field a little, because some pcs were seeing a lot more staff attention than others (certainly I wasn't seeing much and in no small part because I tried so hard to avoid it).  

Maybe this isn't what everyone likes, but my advice to you is look at the game as a relationship between pcs.  Like a character (pc) driven plot rather than plot (staff) driven plot.  

That's my two cents.

also, I'm happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Gimf is the meaniest and scariest player ever in the history of armageddon.

[Timetwister]

Old player here. This tends to come up every so often. I think the problem has always been in the "clan" code basically. Clans get everything. They get NPC guards for their extra hot compounds. They get staff support in just about anything that they do. You never really ever see any conflict between clan-based players. Everybody gets along. Everybody works toward furthering their own loot or money, or the glory of house whatever. A long long time ago players used to be able to make a lot more change to the world. They didn't have to be in clan but that's still the problem. If I gather together a certain amount of PCs and I start building a base, it's likely that it won't get any staff attention. You have to e-mail staff constantly and go Out-of-character to get any support which is really a pain in the ass for people who just like keeping everything IC. Like myself for example:

I don't like forums. I don't like the idea that clans get their own forums. Back in the day you had all communication go through the rumor boards and that was it. The clan forums are really jarring to anybody who embraces their indie characters. I can't get anything done because all the PCs I interact with is completely IC and I don't know any of them in any OOC manner. Which is the way I like it. Nobody here knows who I am and good riddance, I don't want people to know who I play. So in that sense there is a real problem with the way clans work. Clans become this "OOC" drive. Everybody is working together. Everybody posts on their own clan forum to say who they are, and to say when they can play, and this and that. Instead of not knowing what a character might do to you, all of a sudden you're this huge OOC team that is working together.

So basically that's the problem with anything player-driven. You can't say the world is player driven when 99% of players have a coded clan that have vNPCs and NPCs guarding their camps and all that. It's just not fair to those who decide to actually go out and do their own thing. The world has a huge vNPC presence. It has armies that never get utilized. A lot of questions pop up about certain things. Questions that we certainly can't answer.

[musashi]

Really good point Gimf. After thinking about it, I realize that I'm not adjusted to this change at all. Up until now I've always felt like an imm animation automatically equaled a major plot point or something important that my character should be focusing on and devoting a lot of his time to trying to understand and react to.

But with these changes, it could just as easily be a casual, everyday unimportant nuiance that the staff wanted to bring to life for me to make the world seem a bit more real.

Likewise, sometimes when being the recipient of an animation, I'm usually waiting for some kind of "quest" to be handed down by the NPC, and the NPC seems to often be ... annoyed that I'm stalling or wasting their time.

I was starting to feel pretty stalled but, from the viewpoint of the policy change, now it seems like we were both waiting for the other person to make the first move, so we could react.

I think this is going to severely alter my play style from here on out.

[Cutthroat]

What strategies have you used for creating and moving plots that have been successful in this new environment? What have you tried that has not been successful? What level of plot (personal, organizational, inter-organizational, world) have you felt most successful in moving? As always, please keep IC information out of your sharing.

To be successful at moving a plot along in the light of the recent policy change, it needs some ingredients:

• You need at least a little support from staff. You tell them what you plan on doing, and they say okay. If your plot will eventually require some sort of change to the game world, this is important.
• You need player support. Nothing big can be done alone, and organizations often have to work together to complete something. Even if something -can- be done alone, it's often more favorable to include someone in your efforts, to hasten the process. Also, some PCs might disapprove of the plot... you will have to appease them or otherwise take care of them in some way.
• You need something reasonable to do. Most likely, staffers aren't going to let your templar declare war on the opposite city-state, or your Salarri family member to add a tavern to one of the cities. Think of what the game world needs or doesn't need, and what makes sense for your character to consider in his station.

I think it's that third point that is the most important, and the least obvious. Players may get discouraged if their plans don't fit in. They might have to settle for something different, or something lesser.

All that said, however, inter-organizational plots are by far the easiest to start. All the noble houses have specializations, as do the merchant houses, the templarate, and the Byn. They all potentially play important roles in what a plot needs. Worldwide plots are likely the hardest, since you'll need a good reason to affect the whole world by doing something. Also, some plot might make sense ICly, but there is simply no coded support to add it in, in which case it either has to be coded or the plan has to be abandoned, or made "virtual". That could potentially hurt plots.

How have you changed as a player, for good or ill, with these changes? Do you see further opportunities for growth for yourself, and how do you plan to achieve that?

How has your relationship to staff changed, and how do you feel about that?

For me, playing the role of a leader is a lot less intimidating and more relaxing than it once was. I also think I communicate with staff better about what my PC's plans are, and that they are extremely helpful in explaining what is/isn't possible, and in giving advice - but there is no "backseat driving", where staff would directly give your PC things to do or tell you things not to do, whereas that might have existed before the change. Now there are suggestions and advice from staff, but never a definite demand.

What advice would you give to a newbie leader now in ARM? How is that different from what you might have said a year ago?

Start off slow. Think of something you can start right away, preferably something small. Assess what you have, and what you don't have. Out of the latter, figure out what you need. Try to obtain that, and then start your plans. Let staff know how you're doing as you go along. Write detailed reports and ask for advice.

[Gimfalisette]

I am going to offer some of my own experience, in a variety of role types, with moving plots. Note that this experience all happened prior to the official change.

In 2006 I played a Dasari noble when the changes to Tuluk were made. In part, I think I got that role because I put a lot of plot ideas in my application, so the staff knew I would have stuff to work on. (That is a guess, though.) Plots I started: Building the Dasari stall in the Old Quarter to offer stuff for purchase that hadn't been purchasable in Tuluk previously; running some bardic RPTs; a marriage / political alliance; developing some farmland; efforts to frame, assassinate, steal from, or otherwise manipulate other nobles; trading with various tribal organizations. Plots I had a major part in: The Tuluki political crisis and setup of the qynar system; breeding sunlons; curing a noble's health issue so he could get promoted.

Most of this was not easy to do. For about half the time I played that PC, I did not have an active staff member assigned; I couldn't even get regularly paid my stipend, nor could I get the Dasari stall fully implemented. (Another player eventually did that, thank you WWYD ) Another issue was information and confusion about plots; especially when it came to the Tuluki crisis plot, it was just very convoluted and started basically the same week we started our PCs, so no one knew what the crap was happening. In hindsight, that made it incredibly fun and exciting! But at the time I felt like a failure, OOCly and ICly. Also, this was immediately post-2.ARM announcement, and the playerbase had fallen by about 20%, so there were very few minions available in Tuluk, which added extra difficulty to everything. But overall, I got a ton done with this PC and had a blast.

Later, I played an AoD Sergeant who was involved in many plots. However, because the staff philosophy at the time was that only sponsored leaders would get significant staff time, I felt unable to pursue any plots myself. I depended on my PC leadership for plot-starting, and that was quite unsatisfying. There were a lot of high-level magick plots happening, which I don't really tend to enjoy OOCly simply due to my personal preferences; but they were interesting and the RPTs involved were thrilling. I almost never had much communication with my clan staff, which was really the mutual fault of me and staff; I'd send reports and get no reply, so I stopped sending reports, which of course means I didn't hear anything from staff. Overall, I accomplished very little plot-wise in a constructive sense; though I did "start" a plot by killing a clanned minion PC, which was...heh, fun! for many.

Still later, I played a tribal PC who was involved in some plots and also initiated some. There was very good staff support for our pursuits of these plots, and I think that I and the other players were also pretty reasonable about what we wanted to pursue; nothing huge or world-changing, but stuff that would be important to the clan and our PCs. We got the immteraction and email support that we needed, partly because (I believe) of the staffer's personal inclination toward that style of player-initiation.

Since those PCs, I have not attempted to start many plots, but that is mostly my own fault. Sometimes I'm just not good at thinking up plots for the particular PC I am playing, and/or the plots I can think up do not thrill me personally. I generally hate romance plots, and I'm not really into vengeance plots, rather I want to do things that are interesting and lasting in the game; and sometimes a particular PC is just not well-suited to that kind of thing. I don't blame staff for my lack of awesome in this area, it's just something I am still figuring out--how to craft a PC that I will be able to really enjoy playing and who can pursue the types of plots I prefer.

[X-D]

To me armageddon is a game about interaction between people and staff are there to maintain a game world, not be a regular part of that interaction.  I have always molded my role play around interacting with other characters and only speaking to staff when I specifically needed or wanted something that only they could provide. 

To me the new system just evens the playing field a little, because some pcs were seeing a lot more staff attention than others (certainly I wasn't seeing much and in no small part because I tried so hard to avoid it). 

Maybe this isn't what everyone likes, but my advice to you is look at the game as a relationship between pcs.  Like a character (pc) driven plot rather than plot (staff) driven plot. 

The bolded part is also me in a nutshell.

I also dislike the clan GDB forums and use them as little as possible.

And to be honest, I've never, ever had a problem with starting/running plots. So I've not noticed the change at all. Other then a -seeming- apathy staffside when there are things that you simply have to ask/interact with clan senior npcs.

[Gimfalisette]

I am going to say that I would also like to see this from staff:

One thing that has been suggested is making up 'job descriptions', or guides, for the different types of sponsored or leader roles. For example your Merchant might be told that he has the right to:
- Hire crafters
- Hire an assistant
- Arrange for hunters to seek out specialist resources to make goods
- Hire the byn to assist in expeditions
- Work on trade partnerships with fellow merchants in other houses
- Work with enterprising independents to 'incorporate' their goods into the house lines
- Research new product lines

And so on. By giving you guys a better idea of what you have authority over we hope that you'll then have more confidence to do these (and other) things.

Perhaps staff could consider putting a job description of this sort into each of the sponsored-role recruitment announcements they make. That way players know a little bit about what they are getting into, if they haven't played that type of role previously, and they know how to visualize the character they would like to play. This would especially help out newbie leader wannabes. Or, staff could provide a job description after the role is offered/accepted. (Unless that is already happening?)

OR:

Players, perhaps we could collectively write "job descriptions and basic plot suggestions" for Agent, Merchant, Sergeant, Noble, Templar roles? (And any other sponsored or ground-up leadership roles that are commonly seen in game and would benefit from a very general list.)

[Gunnerblaster]

I also dislike the clan GDB forums and use them as little as possible.

It's necessary.

[Nyr]

What I have found to be useful in recent sponsored roles:

I will post as much information about what we are looking for in particular.  We will wait for the apps to roll in.  We agree on an app or two to go with.
At this point, I send out an e-mail telling them they have been accepted, and then detail a bunch of information--basically, a "What You Would Know" if you were X role for your whole life.  This covers the gamut from roleplaying, a bit of recent history, how the qynar/etc. stuff works, all the way to staff expectation (which I admit could be more in-depth as is demonstrated elsewhere).

This has helped tremendously on our side at least.  I think it helps players who are initially hopping into the role to get a good feel for what to expect.

I think it would be a good idea to post job descriptions, and as we have a role opening up within the next couple of days, I will take this advice and put it in the announcement, and maybe throw in some general expectations for staff announced roles in the future.

[LoD]

I haven't really experienced as much of the "new" focus on player-driven plots, but I've always been a player-driven type and believe that many of the practices I employed are still applicable today, even more so under this new environment:

Involve as many people as possible.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

I don't mean to imply that you should divulge your master plan to every single PC with whom your character interacts, but take steps to involve as many other characters and organizations as possible. When the Staff are trying to help players accomplish their tasks, they will invariably drift toward plot lines that involve a large amount of people, because they get more "bang for their buck".  In my experience, people want to be where the action is -- and that includes the Staff.  They will likely choose to spend three hours supporting a plot line that has woven between several characters and organizations than spend the same amount of time assisting a character trying to pursue a plot that affects or impacts only themselves.

The individuals may be:

• Informants
• Spies
• Insurgents
• Explorers
• Messengers
• Rumormongers
• Servants
• Friends

One of the earliest lessons I learned was that clans tended to receive a lot more Staff attention than single characters.  Instead of lamenting this fact, use it to your advantage.  The best way to accomplish this is to make your success -- their success.  Find allies in the ranks of these clans, so that they can lobby internally to the Staff supporting them to support your agenda.  If you can branch out to multiple clans and convince them to follow suit, you will have a much easier time getting your projects approved because, again, it will have several spotlights bringing it to the attention of the swirling galaxy overhead.

The organizations (i.e. clans) may serve you as:

• Financial backing
• Political protection
• Military support
• Real estate negotiators
• Resource suppliers
• Business partners
• Decoys or smoke screens

Think big, but step small.

There's nothing wrong with "big ideas" that may have world-changing results, but it's unrealistic to believe you will accomplish any of those things quickly, which is why you need to focus on making small steps.  The larger the idea, the longer it's going to take for you to achieve it.  Many people are far too impatient and incorrectly assume this is a "glass ceiling" designed to artificially limits what players can achieve in-game, when the reality is that they may not have the time, energy, or resources to realistically achieve what they want.  Wanting it to happen is not enough.

Consider the big picture.

Whether any of us like it or not, some ideas are better suited for the game than others.  Some of our ideas are easier to implement, more convenient to support, and more accessible to the player base.  When considering the type of plots you would like to run, it will benefit you greatly to consider how your ideas will mesh with the broader world. 

• How many people will be impacted negatively or positively?
• How much work is involved to achieve your end goal from the Staff side of things?
• Can you integrate other clans and/or peoples into your plans?
• What obstacles will you have to overcome to achieve your goal, and how many of them will need to be represented by the Staff?

Even with the change in focus upon player-driven plots, many of the same factors will contribute to the success and failure of your idea.  And many of these concepts can help you be successful, as they've helped me be successful in the past.

For what it's worth.

-LoD

[Gunnerblaster]

Crap, LoD - Whenever you post, you shut my face up.

[Gimfalisette]

Players/leaders, how do you generate your plot ideas? Do you come up with a PC you want to play, then decide what plots that PC might be able to pursue? Do you come up with plot ideas that you'd like to pursue and then figure out what PC to create based on that? Do you just make stuff up as you go?

Some information on that process might help players who are struggling to come up with ideas.

Also, what do you think about constructive versus destructive plots? As in, building something is mostly constructive; pursuing a war is generally destructive. Which is easier to pursue? What are the obstacles to pursuing either type? Which do you find more success with? Do you have any tips for those wanting to pursue either type?

[ibusoe]

I like this thread.

+1

[Cutthroat]

Players/leaders, how do you generate your plot ideas? Do you come up with a PC you want to play, then decide what plots that PC might be able to pursue? Do you come up with plot ideas that you'd like to pursue and then figure out what PC to create based on that? Do you just make stuff up as you go?

Some information on that process might help players who are struggling to come up with ideas.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

It's nice to have a wide-spanning goal in mind when you app, but it's a lot easier to start and finish little things that pop up. So when I create a PC, they have some plot(s) they are pursuing right from the start, but as I play, there will be other things the PC wants to do - and rightly so, because the needs of the character, other characters, and the game world are ever-changing.

Also, what do you think about constructive versus destructive plots? As in, building something is mostly constructive; pursuing a war is generally destructive. Which is easier to pursue? What are the obstacles to pursuing either type? Which do you find more success with? Do you have any tips for those wanting to pursue either type?

Person A builds a line of dominoes. It is difficult; it requires intense concentration and patience. Person B flicks the first domino to knock them all down, and it is ridiculously simple.

I apply that train of thought when I say constructive plots are more difficult than destructive ones. However I feel they are more fulfilling as well, and generally get more approval than destructive plots. Destructive ones are alright too, but you will probably find less support to carry them out. The only tip I have is to keep in mind that you won't be able to build a new city, or destroy one, on your own. Reasonable expectations are very, very important.

[LauraMars]

Also, what do you think about constructive versus destructive plots? As in, building something is mostly constructive; pursuing a war is generally destructive. Which is easier to pursue? What are the obstacles to pursuing either type? Which do you find more success with? Do you have any tips for those wanting to pursue either type?

One might think that destruction is an easier path than creation in this game, and in some sense that's true.  It's easier to start a bar brawl than build a brand new bar.  It's easier to kill someone (destroy them) than kidnap them (and create plots).  However, once destruction becomes large-scale, it's basically the same as creation, since staff will need to get involved, and probably build new rooms and/or items in either case. 

To build a new tavern, you will need resources, tools, minions, money, and staff support.
To destroy a tavern, you will need resources, tools, minions, money, and staff support.
To build a new tavern, you will need the approval of your chosen city-state's law enforcement.
To destroy a tavern, you will either need the approval of your chosen city-state's law enforcement, or you will need to avoid your chosen city-state's law enforcement at all costs.

Yes, it can cause psychological feelings of dismay and fear for others when something is destroyed in the game.  But trying to create things can cause psychological feelings of dismay and fear for others as well as stress and frustration for yourself when things don't go your way.

To sum up - does your character have a passion for destruction, or creation?  Either path will be fairly difficult, if you go into it deciding you want to pursue it not just for yourself, but for the rest of the playerbase as well. 

[Zoltan]

I've only played one sponsored leadership role, but I've got some advice, and hopefully it complements the good stuff said so far.

When I applied for the role, I had absolutely no ideas for plots or goals. I think I was given the role because of my sheer cheese-tastic enthusiasm for the role itself. Sometimes, it's just fun to play the boss. I had a character concept in mind and that was it. It's been said before, but leaders, play a character first. Being in a leader role can feel like an OOC burden -- don't let it. The key to that is having fun as you normally would. Everyone has the power to move some sort of plot, sponsored roles just have more IC and sometimes coded power.

Anyway, from day one, I just let things roll along naturally. Some players and staff may get frustrated by an easy-going pace, but most leadership roles aren't meant to be "flash in the pan" type roles. You're typically playing and representing a part of the game world. Just because you have the power to sometimes make bigger things happen doesn't mean that you should, or that you ought to. Let your character's motivations guide you over time. If you go in with a set idea OOCly of what -exactly- you want to accomplish, you will likely become frustrated.

I think the key to "making things happen" with this current staffing policy is to just keep them informed. Even if you have no plan, let them know what's going on anyway. The more they know, the more likely that they'll confidently support you when they're needed. I know that if I were a staffer, the last thing I'd want to do is swoop in and do something completely retarded and ICly nonsensical. Also, have low -expectations-. What I mean by that is that you shouldn't expect to be entitled to anything because of the role. The role itself is really all you need except in certain situations. That doesn't mean that you should just ignore the staff and consider their role ineffectual, it's just that you should toss any feelings of entitlement out the window.


EDIT: I just wanted to add something. I know this may be an unpopular view point, but I say that when you're IG, don't give a fuck about the playerbase as a whole. Please, please, please don't let "what's good for the game" and "what's good for our playerbase" influence the actions of your character too much. Everyone's going to have different ideas of what those things are, and if you try to OOCly please everyone through the game, you will probably grow frustrated. Now, it is -very- good to be considerate and polite and even friendly OOCly to your fellow players. But you don't owe anyone anything. The strength of this game is the separation of the IC and OOC world. If you play realistically and true to your character, you can do no wrong.

[a strange shadow]

EDIT: I just wanted to add something. I know this may be an unpopular view point, but I say that when you're IG, don't give a fuck about the playerbase as a whole. Please, please, please don't let "what's good for the game" and "what's good for our playerbase" influence the actions of your character too much. Everyone's going to have different ideas of what those things are, and if you try to OOCly please everyone through the game, you will probably grow frustrated. Now, it is -very- good to be considerate and polite and even friendly OOCly to your fellow players. But you don't owe anyone anything. The strength of this game is the separation of the IC and OOC world. If you play realistically and true to your character, you can do no wrong.

Quoted and bolded for the motherfucking truth.

If you succeed, people will talk shit about you. If you fail, people will talk shit about you.

The trick is to stop giving a shit.

[Aleksandr]

I have no idea how to make plots or enact them. I've only ever had one character (That's getting pretty damned old, somehow), never been a leader, and lately tend to play off-peak more than anything.

Only real staff interaction i've had (or tried!) was for various requests with the tool.

[Medena]

Being in a leader role can feel like an OOC burden -- don't let it. The key to that is having fun as you normally would. Everyone has the power to move some sort of plot, sponsored roles just have more IC and sometimes coded power.

Anyway, from day one, I just let things roll along naturally. Some players and staff may get frustrated by an easy-going pace, but most leadership roles aren't meant to be "flash in the pan" type roles. You're typically playing and representing a part of the game world. Just because you have the power to sometimes make bigger things happen doesn't mean that you should, or that you ought to. Let your character's motivations guide you over time. If you go in with a set idea OOCly of what -exactly- you want to accomplish, you will likely become frustrated.

This pretty much expresses my own approach to sponsored leadership roles.  I used to experience a lot of stress as a leader because I totally suck at creating plots. Totally.  But that's not to say that I have not driven many along or, in some cases, been instrumental in their starting. It's just that I prefer to have plots emerge organically rather than dreaming them up.  The key thing, as Zoltan pointed out, is being part of the game world and then ensuring that you are responsive to what is going on around you.  As a leader I do think you have a responsibility (moreso than as an Amos Q. Noboby) to be involving other people in plots but this can usually be accomplished quite simply -- while you are playing your character's motivations and responding as they would, just keep a bit of OOC thinking going on about how you can bring other PC's into things.

[Pale Horse]

I'll have to chime in with the crowd that feels far more comfortable with letting plots grow organically.  I've only had two "leadership" roles, if you want to call them that, and both I had no intention of falling into, when they came upon my characters.  Circumstances and the natural ebb and flow of the game world put them into those positions, and I found it far easier to let plots come into form by just letting my character be themselves, and acting and reacting to the world and events as their personalities dictate.

I prefer plots that spring up from multiple minds, than those where I would have to start everything from scratch.  "Good" plots, to me, are those that involve others.  Good "accomplishments" are those things that my character can achieve largely on their own.

[Akoto]

I also approach my leadership roles by allowing things to grow. While such positions (particularly sponsored) should encourage and foster RP, trying to 'force' plots into being has always left me burnt out. My experience has been that, given a little time, the world will typically present logical opportunities to explore.

What has ruined leadership roles for me in the past was the fact that I struggled to be too leaderly. There was nothing else to the persona, and if my subordinates weren't around, my character didn't function. I now realize that it's fine for a leader to also have goals and pursuits, and for such PCs to take time away from their sphere to do personal RP. It's okay to not be in Clan HQ 24/7, and to occasionally shoo off the recruits so that you can have a scene of your own. If you don't find time to play your character outside of keeping everyone else busy, you'll quickly tire and store.

When I am formally organizing a plot, I try to involve as many people as I can within the clan that I lead. However, they are also occasions where only certain people make sense. That's the tough part about leading plots -- there will inevitably come an event where someone is left out. I plan my plots, set a time, and hope that the people who show up have fun. Trying to please everyone is a futile effort, whether you're a player leader or staff.

Having said all of that, I have found staff to be very supportive whenever I've wanted to organize a project or RPT. Nothing has been handed to me, but so long as my aims were sensible, they more often than not provided the means. In my opinion, submitting things like regular reports helps, as it shows them that you're active and contributing to the community. They may, in return, be more inclined to lend a hand in stuff you stir up. Just a guess.

[Gimfalisette]

I am enjoying all the input, but to note, I don't want this to turn into a "how to lead" thread. That is not what this is; this is a "how, as a player (leader or not), to drive plots in the newly player-driven environment."

[Akoto]

Sorry, Gimf. I was trying to get at that from a leader PC's perspective, but I guess it came out as a guide to leadership.

I do stand by my 'letting it grow' statement! Most of the plots I've created/participated in have been in reaction to stuff which has simply happened. I see a change in the environment, a threat from a tribe, some magickal mystery, etc. I then ponder, "Hmm, how can we make a plot of this?" The material is often not at all related to my PC personally, but I can nevertheless get him (and others) involved with it, provided there's some sensible reason to do so.

Our game world has an abundant supply of such opportunities. More often than not, they're are produced by the actions of other players, just as the results of my plots may help them to develop their own ideas.

[Medena]

I am enjoying all the input, but to note, I don't want this to turn into a "how to lead" thread. That is not what this is; this is a "how, as a player (leader or not), to drive plots in the newly player-driven environment."

Though my comments might have seemed more focussed on leading, they were equally about how to drive plots -- be a real character in the game world, respond to your environment, and think of ways to bring in others.  This applies to whether staff are starting plots or whether they are emerging organically.

Personally, I have very little experience of the whole model where as a leader you met with an NPC higher-up once a week to make reports and get instructions or approvals. In fact, the only time I really worked with that was back in 2003 as a high-ranked advisor (commoner) with Borsail.  So, really, I don't feel much difference in how things work.  Then again, maybe I'm not a mover and shaker plot-wise.

[Gimfalisette]

Then again, maybe I'm not a mover and shaker plot-wise.

I don't think that you think that I said you're not, but I'm going to be clear: I didn't say that

Sometimes, I do think that we as players--as a community--believe that the people whose job it is to create and push plots is someone other than "me". Now, the imms have told us clearly that they are not the people whose job it is to create and push plots. The temptation then is to believe that the responsible people are...the leaders! But that's not true, either.

Whose job is it to create and push plots? Note that by "creating" and "pushing" I mean whatever process a player uses to do that--whether it's more a prior-planned strategy (like LoD or me) or whether it's more a go-with-the-flow-and-see-what-comes-up (like Medena, Akoto, and Pale Horse).

So, who?

-- Agents
-- Merchants
-- Nobles
-- Templars
-- Sergeants
-- Soldiers
-- Tribal humans
-- Desert elves
-- Bards
-- Hunters
-- Crafters
-- Everyone

Part of what I love about the new system is that (by my reading) every player has equal access and opportunity to start plots.

[Rhyden]

To be completely honest, I haven't seen this "new" change at all.

I've still seen high-rank boss NPCs being animated, and I've not seen any low-rank nobody NPCs being animated within clans (that I know of).

I was in a somewhat recent leadership position and I had way too many expectations going into the role. That was what I did wrong, and eventually lead to my retirement of said role. It's because I wanted things to happen. I wanted to change the world - even if just a little bit. I wanted to drive plots for -many- players to be involved in. But I was turned down for almost all of them. There were even PCs coming to me with -awesome- plot ideas that would barely scratch the surface of world changing plots. These ideas were genuine, small, doable, and would have created so much -player- interaction and plot device. I wanted to scream YES! Let's do it! Let's start some plots! Jump onto the ole bandwagon we're gonna have some fun! But when I asked my staff if we could proceed, even with the small stuff, they said no. My hands were tied, the role became unrewarding, and I started to feel like a megaphone output for staff to say: "NO." ig.

You could call me bitter, and you would be absolutely right. Bitter enough that I've decided not to play any more leader positions for some time. Instead, I've come down to the micro level and am thoroughly enjoying the low-expectations, pc-pc relationships found amongst the lower castes.

So what is the problem here? Is it really that I had too many expectations for staff allowance going into the role? Should I have just continued my character's life with little to no expectations and goals in mind? What would be the point? Perhaps my characters should all be static, leader or not, who simply float along the waves of mediocrity? I think that is the mindset you have to adapt for Armageddon. Nothing you do will change the world. It's also mostly true for IRL.

[Salt Merchant]

I haven't really caught on to how the new system works.

I've sent in a couple of suggestions for really (really) minor plots to test the waters. One seemed to meet with a lot of approval, the other sort of got a 'meh' response. In both cases it was said they might be implemented, but nothing happened.

Lately, I've more or less adopted a 'just do your best with the tools the the game itself provides you' viewpoint. Not going to try to change anything about the world. The staff is like the weather; omnipresent, affecting the world in ways often barely perceived or understood but sometimes very substantial, yet totally removed from a PC's daily influence and little efforts. I suspect everyone is happiest that way.

[Synthesis]

Chopping muthafuckaz up with bone swords never goes out of style.

(I don't have anything to contribute to this thread, because I pretty much only play bit roles.)

[Gimfalisette]

To be completely honest, I haven't seen this "new" change at all.

Do you think it is possible that perhaps some staffers have also not yet adapted to the change? What would you like to see staffers doing differently, if that is the case?

I have certainly been in leadership roles where I was not able to pursue any plots that I suggested, but in my case the time that happened most significantly is when I had a PC right above me to say "no." And quite honestly, in that situation I believe it was a function of that player's personality; a tendency toward over-control.

It burnt me out toward leadership for a long time, so much so that to date (1.5 years later) I have mostly remained out of leadership, because I was tired of hearing "no" and not being able to pursue anything that I personally found interesting.

How can we encourage other players and staff to, perhaps, be a touch less controlling...so that every player can have a chance to pursue plots that are interesting to them? Is the control an experience issue, a fear issue? What can we do as players to show that we are trustworthy and are ready to take over the control so that things can really be "player-driven"?

Lately, I've more or less adopted a 'just do your best with the tools the the game itself provides you' viewpoint. Not going to try to change anything about the world. The staff is like the weather; omnipresent, affecting the world in ways often barely perceived or understood but sometimes very substantial, yet totally removed from a PC's daily influence and little efforts. I suspect everyone is happiest that way.

I've been there with this mindset myself recently, after feeling very burnt out. And yet, I think this is not necessarily best for the game; IMO, what is best for the game is an active partnership between players and staff to make things fun.

[a strange shadow]

I've decided not to play any more leader positions for some time. Instead, I've come down to the micro level and am thoroughly enjoying the low-expectations, pc-pc relationships

yep.

[Rhyden]

Do you think it is possible that perhaps some staffers have also not yet adapted to the change?

Absolutely. Just as we the players haven't adapted to it yet, it's entirely feasible that neither have some staffers. I don't fully understand the new policy change, but I know that it is an attempt to bring the game back to low-scale player-to-player interaction. Otherwise, I see just another ooc factor with "Staff will no longer be animating the 'big boss' and senior NPCs of the clans for report ins and general catch ups. When a player needs information from the higher ranks of the house this will, in general, be given via email."

But this is understandable, because staff have limited resources, time and are human (cept Looonsh). I just don't like the emphasis on the OOC side of the game. I don't even really like clan boards all that much. The only purpose I see them serving is to coordinate playtimes for clan events and rpts. Otherwise, more OOC = blech. In my perfect Armageddon world, you would be able to do everything with your mudding client. No extra email + clan gdb stuff to pile ontop.

What would you like to see staffers doing differently, if that is the case?

I would like to see more 'yes'es from the staff side. I know, I know, staff can't say yes to everything because then we'd have a Tekless hellhole moshpit of fubar. And even if staff say yes to some things, we get the favortism factor, yadda, yadda.

But if staff said yes just a little more often, grand scale or low, they might find players planting their own seeds and growing huge, beautiful plots that flourish into a multitude of PC involvement, creation, and fun! Or they could fail miserably and die in the process.

Honestly, there's no one good answer. It's a bit of a pickle. Can staff say yes at times? Or should there be an even blanket of denial for everyone? It's hard to say, but personally, I think you need a mix of 'yes' and 'no'.

How can we encourage other players and staff to, perhaps, be a touch less controlling...so that every player can have a chance to pursue plots that are interesting to them? Is the control an experience issue, a fear issue? What can we do as players to show that we are trustworthy and are ready to take over the control so that things can really be "player-driven"?

Very good questions, all of which I've no answers for.

[Fathi]

The only real change I've noticed is that my emails get answered super quick these days. Which is awesome!

Otherwise, as far as support or denial of player-driven plots on the part of the imms, I can't say I've observed anything terribly new.

Not that that's a bad thing; I just don't see what all the fuss is about or why a huge announcement was necessary. I guess it must have affected some clans much more than others.

I haven't changed as a player. I don't feel like my IC interactions with other players have changed. I don't feel like my interaction with the game's staff has changed. In my limited perspective, it seems like player-driven plots are supported or not supported based on the same criteria and with the same frequency that has always been applied to them.

It feels like the same old Armageddon, except your NPCs don't show up as often and you get emails instead. On one hand, that's mildly disappointing because there's a definite wow-factor and a feeling of importance at being "let in on the secret" with an animation. On the other hand, I love getting quick responses via email and it's cool to be the character that's allowed to break important news to the clan. I'm perfectly happy with the way things are going.

However, I suppose my observations should be taken with a grain of salt because I've never managed to play a character for more than a couple weeks without ending up entangled in so much crap that I can't tell which are imm-plots and which are PC-plots.

Overall, I don't feel like the game has changed much at all. But that's fine, 'cause it didn't seem all that broken.

Edit: Edited to fix a sentence that somehow got mangled beyond repair.

[Akoto]

I should add that the new approach has definitely changed me as a player. In recent history, I've been doing my best to generate my own activity and plotlines. Improving in this way - as someone who was once flatly told he took up more staff time than any other player - was very important to me. Some folks (such as the old me) might have been demanding so much as to necessitate a change, not only for our sake, but for staff's.

[Lizzie]

I have a lot to say about this, but instead, I'll just say:

I'm with the group that's basically given up on playing leadership roles for awhile.

[Durant]

I've been very pleased with Staff interaction and support and player interaction and support.

[Dahomey]

It may be more helpful if the staff could give a perspective on what kinds of things they're looking for when players are going to ask for permission for a plot? Is there perhaps a specific outline or questioning that we should ask ourselves, to get an idea of what the staff would be looking for when determining whether or not to give the go to a plot line?

[Olgaris]

This is a great thread, good to see the discussion hasn't run afoul.

As a tangent, I wanted to mention that it seems a few people out there have misconceptions of what shifting to player initiated plots means. On a couple of occasions players have e-mail ideas for plots that would involve their PCs, amongst others, but that still require the staff to basically run the plot. This is not the idea. The plots that will happen are ones that players go out and do, that require us to react. An e-mail stating something along the lines of (over simplification) "Hey, it would be great if Amos T. Merchant (vNPC) required pesticide for his herb patch because of an infestation of Q. Insectoids, then Amos needed the T'zai Byn to do X to fix it" likely won't happen.

"Hey,  I am Amos T. Merchant (PC) and I am roleplaying that there is an insect infestation in my herb patch. I am going to hire the T'zai Byn to go to X and find me some Y, can you make this entertaining or whatever when they do it?" This is likely to happen.

Other common reasons for plots not going forward I have seen are:

• Players assuming that an IC no means an OOC don't do it. The new format of e-mail-mostly responses makes the lines easy to blur, and I think we can work on specifying that no's are often from IC superiors and not specifically from staff, saying that we won't support something.
• Wanting to do something beyond what the PC has resources to do.
• Attempting something that really just doesn't make any sense.

I feel a bit like I'm grasping at straws coming up with reasons why plots don't go ahead, as I think I've mentioned more possibilities than I've seen plots kiboshed. There is also a bias/blinder to my opinion, because I play on this side of the proverbial fence... but there you have it.

[mansa]

I have trouble because I don't know:

A) How long to expect for a specific event to take place
B) How much resources I need in order to create the specific event
C) If the specific event is even possible

I wish there was some more concrete examples that I could mimic.  Or a generic policy based on the type of event I want to do.


I'm saying EVENT, which could be anything, be that creating a room, destroying a room, modifying a room, npc, item, adventure, spell, etc.

[Decameron]

In my experience, destroying a room just takes a bit of RP.

"THUR IS SUMTHING BENEATH THE FLOORBOARDS!!"

A few hours later, we've utterly destroyed the floor-boards, and .. are covered in kank-fleas.

Creating a room .. well, that takes quite a bit more. You need the resources, materials, and backing to create it. I'd say a few months to a year - but then again, this is solely from my own experience.

[Fathi]

In my experience, destroying a room just takes a bit of RP.

"THUR IS SUMTHING BENEATH THE FLOORBOARDS!!"

A few hours later, we've utterly destroyed the floor-boards, and .. are covered in kank-fleas.

This dude's got it.

If there's no staff around and something major happens that you think would change a room, tossing off an email with a log almost always works.

[mansa]

I think both of you are caught up in my first example, and didn't read the full sentence.  I don't really care about rooms.  I care about expectations required to "do stuff".

[Rhyden]

• Players assuming that an IC no means an OOC don't do it. The new format of e-mail-mostly responses makes the lines easy to blur, and I think we can work on specifying that no's are often from IC superiors and not specifically from staff, saying that we won't support something.

Possibly because it's coming from an OOC email? I agree, I've made the IC-not-OOC mistake before. But when it comes down to it, I see little difference. If staff say no, it generally means no. IC and OOC.

• Attempting something that really just doesn't make any sense.

Why would this matter? If a leader does something that doesn't make any sense, shouldn't they receive nonsensical repercussions to reflect their bad decisions?

I think I'm grasping at straws too, but I feel like this "new change" encourages mediocre leaders without goals, and leaves the exceptional ones with grand schemes, big ideas and unrealistic goals in the dust. Maybe that's just how it has to be.

What I can say for sure, is that playing a leader is a huge turn-off for me now. Sorry.

[Fathi]

I think both of you are caught up in my first example, and didn't read the full sentence.  I don't really care about rooms.  I care about expectations required to "do stuff".

I wasn't actually responding to your post, but I'll give it a go now:

I have trouble because I don't know:

A) How long to expect for a specific event to take place
B) How much resources I need in order to create the specific event
C) If the specific event is even possible

I usually start by emailing and asking C. If I get a "yes," then I ask B and provide an estimate of what my character already has gotten together. After that, I just RP through it for a while, until some time has passed. Then just email and check again. It's inexact and there are no real guidelines, unfortunately. Maybe some basic examples would be a benefit.

[Cerelum]

Why would this matter? If a leader does something that doesn't make any sense, shouldn't they receive nonsensical repercussions to reflect their bad decisions?

I think it purely comes down to being efficient.  Nobody wants to spend all their time emoting through NPCs or changing room descriptions then passing them through quality control (if they have that here) to find out they need to re-do it cause they had a run on sentance or something.

I haven't had any experience dealing with staff through IC repurcussions really though, other than them killing me.  But I would hazard to guess it's the same as real life.

It's easier to punish and expect better behavior in the future, than it is to give and expect better behavior through happiness that might alter other people's perceptions.

[Olgaris]

• Players assuming that an IC no means an OOC don't do it. The new format of e-mail-mostly responses makes the lines easy to blur, and I think we can work on specifying that no's are often from IC superiors and not specifically from staff, saying that we won't support something.

Possibly because it's coming from an OOC email? I agree, I've made the IC-not-OOC mistake before. But when it comes down to it, I see little difference. If staff say no, it generally means no. IC and OOC.

• Attempting something that really just doesn't make any sense.

Why would this matter? If a leader does something that doesn't make any sense, shouldn't they receive nonsensical repercussions to reflect their bad decisions?

I think I'm grasping at straws too, but I feel like this "new change" encourages mediocre leaders without goals, and leaves the exceptional ones with grand schemes, big ideas and unrealistic goals in the dust. Maybe that's just how it has to be.

What I can say for sure, is that playing a leader is a huge turn-off for me now. Sorry.

I don't want to degrade the quality of this thread by getting bogged down on anything specific instead of the generalities, but I would be happy to go over anything with you via e-mail.

It's fine for a leader to do something that doesn't make sense, and get repercussions for doing so. However, if a leader tells their superiors they are going to do something that doesn't make sense, their superiors are going to say no. IC superiors in an e-mail saying no means that said leader PC will not have the resources IC, that they were hoping for. It does not mean that nothing will happen if they set up a RPT and go for it.

Leaders with grand schemes, and big ideas can get things accomplished. Unrealistic goals get left in the dust because they are unrealistic. I think most of the leader-burn suffered these days are due to misunderstandings (on both sides) and unrealistic expectations/goals on an OOC level.

Playing a leader is not for everyone, and that's fine. I've stored every sponsored PC I've ever played, likely a lot earlier than my staff at the time was hoping. I prefer lower-level play, and often find that a lot more crazy stuff happens and can get initiated down at that level anyway.

One of the main, if not the biggest reason, we made this staffing switch is to pull away from huge, high-level (usually very magickal) plotlines where only a few PCs near the top were really involved and maybe a few minions got tossed into the mix. The hope is that as staff and players alike get used to this, a lot more stuff happens that involves a lot more people, and really depends upon players to initiate, influence, and react to what is going on.

If anyone wants to talk specifics with me I'm an e-mail away.

olgaris@armageddon.org and CC mud@armageddon.org

[Olgaris]

I was going to post a list of large, city-state or world changing plots that were completely initiated by players. Then I realized I can't because it is sensitive information. I can however say that recently 16ish rooms were created and 30ish were modified due to a 100% player driven plot, as per the update tool. It was a long time in the making, but that's the level of patience it takes.

[Delstro]

I havn't had a problem of being told no by staff when I want to do something. I think the problem lies in the way you propose the idea to staff. I find the most effective way of getting things done IRL, and IG, is to ask a few questions. "What do I need to do to accomplish (target)?", "Would it be possible to utilize (person #1) from House (Haterade) to complete (target)?", "Are there goals I need to accomplish before I can make (target) easier to accomplish?", etc... It may take some time, but I don't think they would flat out tell you know unless you hit them with a yes no questions. It is always easier to say no, than it is to explain why it is no.

[Riev]

Since the change went in, I havn't had -much- personal interaction from staff, but that is fully because I do not find pleasure in roleplaying that I have kankfleas in my pubic hair and I need to get them out (not a ... nevermind...)

However, ferreting out all the complaining from some people, I -do- feel that there is a distinct IC-leaders saying "Thats not a good idea" leading directly to players assuming their idea is stupid and the staff are saying it can't be done. Honestly, my current staffer has been -pretty- good at saying, in an email, that "That will likely not happen, and here are the reasons" so I can go over them and realize just what I was asking.

I have yet to really hear "Absolutely not, you cannot and will not do <something>"

[Archbaron]

Just out of pure curiosity ... has anyone seen this?

My one gripe with the situation is that facilitation seems to have been replaced with 'stopping at all cost'. 'Realistic response' has become 'failure'.

Just want to say, this is a problem that I've had frequently in the past, and I also hear that others have issues with it as well.

[jhunter]

To be completely honest, I haven't seen this "new" change at all.

I've still seen high-rank boss NPCs being animated, and I've not seen any low-rank nobody NPCs being animated within clans (that I know of).

I was in a somewhat recent leadership position and I had way too many expectations going into the role. That was what I did wrong, and eventually lead to my retirement of said role. It's because I wanted things to happen. I wanted to change the world - even if just a little bit. I wanted to drive plots for -many- players to be involved in. But I was turned down for almost all of them. There were even PCs coming to me with -awesome- plot ideas that would barely scratch the surface of world changing plots. These ideas were genuine, small, doable, and would have created so much -player- interaction and plot device. I wanted to scream YES! Let's do it! Let's start some plots! Jump onto the ole bandwagon we're gonna have some fun! But when I asked my staff if we could proceed, even with the small stuff, they said no. My hands were tied, the role became unrewarding, and I started to feel like a megaphone output for staff to say: "NO." ig.

You could call me bitter, and you would be absolutely right. Bitter enough that I've decided not to play any more leader positions for some time. Instead, I've come down to the micro level and am thoroughly enjoying the low-expectations, pc-pc relationships found amongst the lower castes.

So what is the problem here? Is it really that I had too many expectations for staff allowance going into the role? Should I have just continued my character's life with little to no expectations and goals in mind? What would be the point? Perhaps my characters should all be static, leader or not, who simply float along the waves of mediocrity? I think that is the mindset you have to adapt for Armageddon. Nothing you do will change the world. It's also mostly true for IRL.

Rhyden just perfectly explained my past experiences with leadership roles. It always seemed that no matter what I wanted to try and do, or no matter how I tried to go about it, I was thrown up rock-solid brick walls that shut things down completely. I didn't ever truly feel like I was "allowed" the -opportunity- to at least try to make some things happen.

It sounded to me like the changes were supposed to make this situation dissipate to some degree. It seems to me that in the much farther past, it was more possible to make things happen in the game than it was in recent years. As for the current situation, I'm honestly not sure what has changed if anything. I haven't had the time or the inclination to get involved in any sort of leadershiip roles in recent times to find out.

[Rhyden]

I've got off to the wrong start. Think my initial post came off a little bit too bitter. My apologies, but it's been a bad day. Meh. I'll try to be a bit more explanatory about where I'm coming from, and attempt to have a more light-hearted tone.

I never posted on the original thread to this announcement. Not sure why. Probably because I agreed with most that it was a pretty awesome idea. I love that Adhira has turned the focus to the player-player and player-staff scheme of things, not to mention staff assistance has only got better since the time I joined ArmageddonMud.

This is an area for us to work on. One thing that has been suggested is making up 'job descriptions', or guides, for the different types of sponsored or leader roles. For example your Merchant might be told that he has the right to:
- Hire crafters
- Hire an assistant
- Arrange for hunters to seek out specialist resources to make goods
- Hire the byn to assist in expeditions
- Work on trade partnerships with fellow merchants in other houses
- Work with enterprising independents to 'incorporate' their goods into the house lines
- Research new product lines

And so on. By giving you guys a better idea of what you have authority over we hope that you'll then have more confidence to do these (and other) things.

I followed this list and had some pretty interesting interaction with players. Hired crafters, assistants, Byn, a few parterships, the whole shabang. It was quite fun all around.

But I guess I'm too creative, or impatient, or something. Because it's not enough, at least for me individually. I want to change the world in this game I spend -way- too many hours playing. Even if it's just a small, small bit, which might pass on into the realms of Armageddon Reborn. That seems like all we can achieve before the end of the game comes. Leave a legacy, no matter how large or small.

And if I can't do that, then I don't want to play a leadership position so much. Instead, I'll play a gritty joe schmoe nobody who never has a chance at leaving any trace, but probably have a blast-and-a-half of fun doing so.

My 2 sids. Take it or leave it. I mean no harm and come in peace - here are my brainz, here is your spoon. I'm going to bed.

[Gimfalisette]

More thoughts.

Generally speaking, I ask for staff assistance with a plot when there is some element of it that I cannot accomplish completely in-game, using existing code; perhaps some skill or location or item that is not fully coded, or I need to interact with a virtual-only organization, or I'm creating something. However, if everything I want to do is already in-game (I want salt crystals; I hire the Byn to get them for me; they go do that codedly), then I don't need staff assistance and I just email them to let them know what's up. This means there are plenty of plots that I am 100% able to pursue without staff help.

However, there are times when something simply cannot be done without staff help. And I believe that in order for these plots to become fully player-driven, players need better communication with staff both from their side and from staff. While miscommunication persists, players will remain reluctant to take up leadership, fearful of presenting plots, and mistrustful of staff. Much of what LoD wrote previously is helpful for players in planning and communicating well, which will help lead to success at creating and pushing plots. But players can't solve the overall communication issues on our own; we need staff help to pursue this plot

Below are some of the problems I have encountered, and have observed other players encountering as well.

-- Sometimes the staff seems to not understand that my PC and I can, and do, have different emotional reactions to things. Just because my PC rants and screams in game, that does not mean that I am OOCly upset about whatever is bothering my PC. My PC may negatively react to an NPC; but that does not mean that I, the player, believe the staff member is being unfair or a jerk or wants to punish me. My PC does not want to lose (what character ever would, really?), but the player is generally fine with the roleplay that comes from "losing." Unless I send an email communication that states, "I, Gimf, am really upset" then I would like the benefit of the doubt that the reaction staff is seeing is completely IC, not OOC.

-- Sometimes the staff misinterprets my emails, which I valiantly do my very best to be precise, concise, and crystal-clear in. (Once a staff member actually sent me kudos for my weekly reports, so I think I must be fairly decent at my emails.) The above IC-OOC confusion also comes in here; I have found it valuable to state that "ICly, this is how PC feels." But even then, I have felt at times that staff interprets my PC's feelings as also being my feelings. Sometimes staff does not read my emails thoroughly, and responds incompletely. When this happens, I honestly do not know what to do--risk pissing my staffer off by re-asking my question? Drop the matter? Go ahead and do what I want anyways? Usually this quandary leaves me doing nothing at all.

-- Often, the staff are very unclear about their OOC expectations for a particular role, what they would generally like to see happen, what the parameters for play are, and how best to communicate with them and ask for assistance. Getting a new staff member at rotation or upon joining a new clan can be a frustrating process, similar to being a college student and trying to figure out exactly what the professor wants--so that you don't fail the class. But in ARM, there are no grades, there is very little feedback, and I have often felt totally in the dark about figuring out what the staff really wants or how they prefer to do business. The one exception to this is when I played a Tuluki noble; upon acceptance, we were given a whole slew of email instructions about what to do, what not to do, and how things would work. Because I knew that weekly reports were required, you can be damn sure that I sent them faithfully every week. But the vast majority of the time, this does not happen for sponsored roles--and it certainly doesn't happen in non-sponsored roles. So almost always, players are left trying to interpret what the staff wants, based on staff's reaction to their own attempts. This is a nearly impossible and extremely frustrating task, and it sets the parties on both sides up for failure of the relationship. I would like to see all sponsored roles receive expectations documentation upon acceptance; and I would like to see staff members coming onto rotation in their clans always adding to their, "Hi and I look forward to killing you!" message something about what they would like from their players immediately and on an ongoing basis.

-- Sometimes the staff are inconsistent with their response, as a group, or inconsistent with prior staffers or with the documentation. I had an instance where I sent one email to my overseeing staff about a plot idea, and received four completely different responses back (one, I believe, was not even from a staff member who was currently listed for that clan); some were along the lines of "OOCly yes," some were along the lines of "OOCly no," and some of them left me feeling that I was being chided for suggesting such a plot. This left me completely befuddled as to what to do, and demotivated me for pursuing that type of plot at all. Of course, staff members are individuals and will necessarily have varying opinions; however, I think it would be beneficial for staff to present one overall opinion to players, almost always.

-- Sometimes staff support disappears mid-stream. When rotation happens and the new staff member has a radically different style or different preferences, or when a staff member suddenly needs to focus on RL for a while, players often must abandon their plots, even those that were previously-approved. This has happened to me a handful of times now. I do not know whether there is now an understanding amongst staff, in the player-driven environment, that previously-supported player plots should be allowed to go forward despite staff changes; but I think it would be very beneficial to players to know that there is such an "transfer agreement."

Staffers, especially those who have previously responded in this thread, please don't think that I'm "aiming" at you or have any particular agenda other than to openly discuss communication issues; also please don't feel like you must personally respond to the issues or go point-by-point to address my "problems." I am not wanting to call anyone out or point fingers, I simply want to talk about our current system and what system changes might help support the player-driven environment. I believe, nearly always, that difficulties we have here in ARM are not the fault of any particular players, staff, or group of either; rather, they are the result of faulty systems that may just need some fixing.

[X-D]

So...I was going to post...but Gimf beat me to it.

So...yes, what Gimf said.

And the first one being the largest problem I've had in the past. I really do play the PC as somebody other then myself guys...And no matter how my emails sound, I'm really not pissed off. Well, cept when it has to do with things happening because somebody saw 2 minutes out of 5 hours play and used that out of context info...that bugs me.

Also, on the plots side, I myself love the low level stuff. Which is why I suppose the change towards player driven has not affected me.

[LoD]

There are always going to be communication problems as long as we are human, and there are some issues that will plague the lines of communication between Staff and players no matter what policies are adopted, especially as they pertain to asking for permission.

Full Disclosure

One factor that likely influences the answers we receive is the difficulty in achieving full disclosure.  We may ask something like, "I want to make a new breed of mount by breeding kanks and inix."  This request may have come in while they were still deciding how to handle IP property issues for the new game, and so there may have been two repsonses:

Response 1

"Thanks for your plot suggestion!  Unfortunately, that will not be possible at this time."

Response 2 (Full Disclosure)

"Due to issues with WoTC Intellectual Property contained within Armageddon, kanks and inix as it pertains to your request, we are considering releasing a new version of the game in the future void of this IP.  Because of this decision, certain plots have already been set into motion that are independent to your own and, because they are necessary for the future of the game, somewhat fixed in their outcome.  Unfortunately, we will not be able to support your attempt to mix kanks and inix, because both of those animals will no longer be a part of the game's future, and we want to ensure a clean break from any IP issues."

Now, the full disclosure response may contain information that the Staff was either unwilling or unprepared to divulge at the time, and while the reasoning is sound and completely understandable, you aren't provided with any better reason than the Staff simply won't allow you to move forward with what you feel is a legitimate request and fun/exciting plot line.

The Boy Who Cried Plot!

Almost all of us have lost a character and created a new one.  It's only normal for us to treat the two characters as two separate entities, with unique descriptions, wants, needs, relationships and goals.  We have new clothing, new clans, new skills, and new plots to pursue as we interact with the rest of the game.  And it's natural for us to forget the past as we plod toward the future, drawing a clean slate to begin anew.  Except, it's not really new for the Staff members.  Though you are embodying a new character, with a new personality, they are dealing with the same player, the same account name, and everything that implies.

There are likely people who make frequent requests to the Staff for plot support, only to inevitably die, disappear, or store their character.  And while they may feel that each character represents a clean slate, and a new opportunity, the Staff members are still interacting with the same email address, the same account name, and, potentially, the same style of requests for sdesc changes, NPC desc changes, special object requests, room creation requests, etc...  This may also contribute to the responses you receive when your 10th character submits their 10th request for staff support on a plot they want to pursue.

Varying Degrees of Experience and Authority

When making requests, it's entirely possible that your message is going to be received by Staff members with varying degrees of experience and authority.  Most Staff members know, or feel they remember, what it was like to be a player waiting for a response and want to respond to you as quickly as possible.  This could certainly result in responses that vary, not only in whether your request was approved or denied, but in how they've chosen to respond.  New Staff members might be curt because they don't really the history behind a policy, only that it needs to be enforced, while others may answer abruptly simply because they're busy.

I can understand how it might be frustrating to get a response that doesn't quite answer your question, leaves you with more questions, or leaves you feeling as if your request wasn't fully considered.  I'm at a disadvantage here, because I generally don't email the Staff for the things I want to pursue -- I just pursue them and see what happens.  By the time I'm asking whether it's possible, I've already achieved a fair portion of it in-game.  And this is possible because I've almost always chosen to pursue plots that I felt were realistic with the current game environment, including the existing Staff support, policies, active organizations, and active players.

Pretense of Perfection

One thing that I imagine is quite common is that we (the players) have generally come to expect timely and professional responses from the Staff on the majority of our requests and submissions, and that certainly sets us up to be disappointed whenever the responses differ in either timeliness or tone.  It's important to remember that the Staff are all volunteers, and that pursuing plots that require Staff assistance is really asking for something above and beyond what the game is obliged to provide to you.  No other game you play will allow you to make changes to it, or have major events bend to your will in the way that Armageddon can, and we can sometimes take that fact for granted when making requests.

I mention these various situations not because I feel the Staff are perfect, or that they couldn't benefit from improved methods of communication or attention to tone -- we all can -- but more to highlight issues that will probably always exist, no matter what policies, methods, or people are responding to your questions.  And while it may not help every person with their problems, it may help you be cognizant of certain conditions when making requests and choose your wording accordingly, accept a response more readily, or perhaps pursue specific plots more sparingly.

As far as having success, I've succeeded the most in plots where I:

1. Involve people.  Create a goal that will include as many players from your own clan as possible and include steps that require both combat and non-combat roles.  Imms will support a goal more readily if it involves a lot of other players, even if it is only within one clan.

2. Draw inside the lines.  Create a goal within the guidelines of both the MUD and clan documentation which does not blatently go against their best wishes, common practices or established laws. (i.e. Coming up with a new style of mount for pulling wagons that grants your clan a special advantage in that field might be good whereas plotting to kill every family member in attempt to take over the operation would not be as good.)

3. Add to the game.  Create a goal that has an end goal that can be both appreciated by a wide variety of players and fill a NEED in the game.  Something that the game does not yet have, or needs more of.

4. Less work, better success. Create a goal that requires the least amount of Immortal intervention and work possible.  If it requires work that you can do in advance, then you do as much as humanly possible.  This will increase your chances of seeing it done.  I guarantee that an Imm will look much more closely at your proposal if it has been well thought out and designed ahead of time than if you are depending on them to do it all for you.  This would include writing up rooms, objects, NPC's, scripts, documentation, backgrounds, etc...

5. Plan to work, then work your plan.  This is not an overnight gig, or even something you should expect to happen in a RL month or two.  This might be something you need to commit to for several months or even years depending upon the outcome of your proposal.  There are going to be pitfalls, setbacks, challenges and problems that arise which many people see as Imms telling them 'no.'  My simple suggestion is not to accept that if you feel strongly enough about your actions and find another route to take.  There are many roads leading to the same city, so don't be discouraged when one is closed to you.  I mean, if your goal is trying to get home for Christmas and the highway you normally take is closed for repairs, do you just shrug and say, 'There's always next year.'?  No, you probably figure out another way to go about accomplishing your task.  The same can be done in Armageddon.

-LoD

[flurry]

I'm way late to the party on this one, but I had a few things I'd been thinking about when this thread was hopping, and I never got around to posting them.

Mostly, I think communication with staff is the most important thing leaders can do, especially since the change. And that includes asking questions when you need clarification. I ask an annoying number of questions to my clan staff when I play leader roles, but it helps me a ton and I think it helps them know where I stand on things. I just think it's better to ask something than to remain frustrated over some ambiguity.

While I accept that the change was and is for the best, there are still some things about it that I don't yet understand. For instance, I am aware the world is now supposed to be more changeable by player initiative, but I don't understand how. What is different now? That part I still wonder about. Does a noble have more IC authority than before? A templar? A merchant? I don't think it is supposed to reflect an IC change in authority, but still the world is more malleable, somehow, even if it doesn't feel that way.

Another related issue is the difficulty I have reconciling the ideas that a sponsored character is just a simple cog in the wheel and yet, now, has carte blanche (seemingly) from their clan to do what they want. That's probably the most confusing issue for me, navigating clan issues with the unseen NPC population which now can be perceived as voiceless and apathetic.

This isn't meant to be a criticism of the policy itself, but rather a note of agreement that adjustment to the policy is still a work in progress on the player side.

[Gimfalisette]

After thinking over some experience I had last year in what was essentially a player-driven type of clan, and some more recent experience, I have some more on what has worked for me:

Have a goal that makes sense for your clan, and preferably will benefit the game

Pretty much covered above. Some goals are more workable than other goals.

Document fully

In order to bring anything to fruition, you're going to need to be working at it a long time, so you may as well keep yourself organized and document stuff fully, OOCly. This will help you not get lost in the maze of your plot.

Communicate clearly, with sufficient detail

I believe this was pretty much covered above, but in order to drive plots you are going to need to be weekly communicating with your staff via email to tell them what you're doing, and asking for responses.

Combine both OOC and IC actions

Email your report to the imms once a week, but also do stuff in game to further your plot. This could mean meeting with PCs, communicating with V/NPCs, going and doing something. For extra bonus awesome points, use other PCs to do this stuff for you. I sekretly suspect that the imms will love you for handing out plot-related quests.

Do not expect animations--these are more often minor interactions now

Staff will animate to possibly drop a plot clue, or to snap at your PC for bleeding all over the floor, or to attend an RPT, or for some other minor reason, but they are most likely not going to animate in order to have an NPC deliver orders to your PC. Those days seem gone, and players need to adjust.

Involve other players and organizations

LoD really covered this point thoroughly above, so I'm just going to repeat: Involve other players and organizations, and your plot is more likely to be fun and to succeed.

Expect and relish obstacles and change

If you want to do something even moderately big, the staff is not simply going to say "yes," hand you 50k, and let you go do it. There are both IC and OOC reasons for this. The main IC reason is that the world of Zalanthas is highly calcified, and change is extremely difficult to bring about. GMHs and noble houses and the templarates and tribes all have their defined roles and their territories, and all the V/NPCs are locked into that. By attempting to change even the smallest thing, you are rocking the boat; you have, in a certain sense, become an outlaw and a rogue and a bad guy. Congratulations, you're the enemy!

The main OOC reason is that the game wouldn't be any fun for you, or the other players, if stuff was easy to accomplish. The staff pushes back on player-driven plots because this is a form of conflict for us to work to overcome.

So my recommendation is that you come to expect and enjoy the obstacles that will definitely be presented to you. The bigger the plot, the bigger the obstacles you will encounter, and the more fun you can generate for yourself and the rest of the playerbase around the plot. In the end, you may not "win" at your plot, but ultimately it's the journey that matters anyways. (Though I admit, winning is fun!)

How to interpret staff responses

Mentioned above in the thread was some persistent confusion among players as to when an email response is an IC or an OOC response. In my experience, this is generally fairly clear; but if it is not clear, I would recommend emailing the staff back and simply asking. IC responses generally say things like "There are rumors that...", while OOC responses are worded as, "Right now, that doesn't seem like an appropriate goal to pursue."

If you have received an IC response to a plot proposal or some progress you've submitted, you will probably need to read between the lines somewhat for clues as to what you might do next. The staff is not going to lay it out for you: "OK now do this." Nope, they're just going to drop some hints and let you figure it out. This sounds frustrating! (And it can be, a little.) But it is also fun.

You can choose to take the hints you get from staff and go in what seems like the logical direction, or you can choose to go another direction entirely. Logic and knowledge of the gameworld will help you figure out ahead of time what are the likely results of your chosen paths. But remember that you do have complete choice as to what you do next.

Another thing that will happen as you go along is that staff will change your plot. Perhaps you just thought you wanted to invent a widget, but suddenly with the way staff has made the world respond to your plot, you're now on the verge of discovering nuclear power, or needing to build a widget factory. You didn't plan for this, but here you are, so change with the plot.

Keep your eye on the goal, and persist

Nothing in Armageddon happens quickly. Take your estimate of how long it will take, and multiply it by five...and maybe...maybe...that will be enough time for it to happen. You are going to have to be in it for the long haul if you want to accomplish anything even moderately large. Yes, that can feel frustrating if you let it--we've all been there. But I think if we simply keep in mind that this is how things work, and make sure we're having fun in the meantime, this will work itself out.

[musashi]

 just want to throw in heret hat if you get a negative response back from staff about something you should send in a follow up email to ask if that is an IC response or an OOC one.

I've had staff clairfy for me both ways. Saying either ... go ahead and persue that IC'ly as your PC would ... And ... we don't generally approve that an we've denied it in the past so, no.

Staff are pretty up front if you ask them for clairification.   

[Shalooonsh]

Huh, shows how observant I am.  One of my favorite topics, and I've never even seen this thread.

I think something that commonly escapes player attention is how much work it is to get new stuff into the game.  It's really not as simple as it might seem to be.  Storytellers can't just 'whip up' a new room, bar, street, city, or zone and plop it into the game.  There's a -lot- going on behind the scenes to make sure that Armageddon is held up to stringent standards.  It's because of this large amount of work that we have had to put some slight strictures in place in order to keep the workload down.

Some things we have to look at when a player writes in to introduce a plot are:

• Average PC Lifespan on the account
• Player Communication Ability and Responsibility
• Potential effect on playerbase at large
• Potential effect on new players
• Potential snowball effect for extra plotlines
• Building cost in manhours IC
• Building cost in staffhours OOC
• Precedent the action may or may not set
• Realism vs. "Cool Factor"
• End Result

Average PC Lifespan on the account
Because some plots take a long while to spin up, we need to look at this factor to make sure that the PC will still be alive (or consequential, if dead) when the results kick off.  If, for example, Joe Bynner wants to make a set of latrines on Meleth's Circle, we want to have some relative assurance that, if we start building, Joe isn't going to go scrab himself half way through the project, wasting the time we spent on approval/building.

Player Communication Ability and Responsibility
Another thing we look at is how reliable is the player themselves, and we don't just mean in karmic levels.  How often do they report things?  Do they report even handedly, or just the good?  Could there be an alterior motive for getting whatever change it is in game?  The more up front you are with us, on an every day basis, the more likely we're going to trust your intentions.

Potential Effect on Playerbase At Large
So you want to topple all the Templars in Allanak.  Somehow your PC has the IC resources to invent a sickness that travels only between people who own metal (this is just an example).  You release it on the populace, being the equivalent of Chemical Ali, and starting the untold murder of loads of templars.  Allanak would suddenly become lawless, and we'd have riots every day.  This, from a player standpoint, might be a lot of fun.  From a storyteller standpoint, it would be absolute hell.  This is an example of something that, while possible, we may dismiss as a potential plotline, due to the investment in storyteller hours (see below for more details on this)

Potential Effect on New Players
Not so recently a plotline happened that a LOT of people had a ton of fun on, and changed something dramatically.  Something in the way, way, way southeast.  There was a village.  I'm not giving any more info, but it was cool.  The ramifications of this change were a bit more far-reaching than we realized at first.  It made starting in sudden locations as a new player a lot more difficult.  This is also part of what is listed below as "The snowball effect."  Things that seem not so huge can have -major- ramifications in other areas.  While Joe Bynner may have tons of cash to throw around, Edward the Sparkling Newbie will not, and may very well die if they aren't able to attain Resource X at a low cost.  Something that makes perfect sense from an IC standpoint, and is do-able with resources, may be shot down if it makes the game virtually unplayable in location Y due to the change.

Potential for Snowball Effect
It's very difficult to gauge what changes will bring what other changes, but we do our best.  We are (mostly) only human as staffers, and we do our best to look into the potential futures to make sure all eventualities are planned for.  However, if one small change has a potentiality of over 100 "snowball plotlines" we may shoot it down, or at least ask the player to refine the idea so that the potential plotlines are more directional (IE: easier covered by us).

Building Cost in Man-Hours IC
Sudden change may be cool, but it doesn't really bring too much of a feeling of accomplishment.  For this example (and the next) I will use the idea of lighting a campfire in a wooden apartment building (this happened to me as a staffer).  It was 3 am.  I was tired, and had to work in the morning.  Suddenly a wish comes up about this character lighting a campfire in their room and throwing a bunch of cloth on it to make a huge blaze.  Realistic?  Yeah, sure.  Cool?  Not really.  Not only had we not been informed, but this totaled maybe 20 minutes of PC effort for something that would create...

Building Cost in Staff Hours OOC
... about 3 weeks worth (at best estimate) of staff effort to finish the effects.  We'd need to first gauge how far the fire would spread, what rooms would be affected and to what degree, and if the fire would spread outside of the complex.  After that, the building would begin.  If the staffer moved at crackrabbit speeds, it would be about a week's worth of building (rough estimate), with a potential of two to three weeks.  After that, the new rooms would need to be proofread and approved, then linked in, which takes, at a minimum, another week, and at a maximum about a month.  For this reason, a neighbor was very attentive and ran in to smother the blaze, creating a nice burn mark on the floor of the apartment that took about an equal amount of staff time (a simple description rewrite for 2 lines of the room) to invest.

Precedent the Action May or May Not Set
Continuing the above example, it would be bad to set a precedent that it is "OK" to burn down an apartment building with absolutely 0 warning at 3 AM on a Thursday night.  This would, likely, quickly lead to a severe shortage of housing across Zalanthas.  However, leaving a large scorch mark, or (as was mentioned in a previous post) tearing up the floorboards are largely cosmetic changes, and can be handled most of the time by a staffer on duty IF they are so inclined.  I swear to the Gods if a bunch of you start going on a floorboard murdering spree that I'll castrate the lot of you.

Realism vs. "Cool Factor"
Is it realistic?  Is it needed?  Is it something that will enhance the game?  Is it just "cool and neat" or will it bring benefit to the game in some manner?  Things that are just "cool" will not be OK'd as often as something that brings a benefit, whether it be physical or atmospheric, to the game.  Storyteller time is Serious Business.

End Result
"Is this going to enhance the game, atmospherically, physically, or in any other manner?"  If a plotline is created simply to 'grief' other players, then yeah, we're probably going to say no.  This is not to say that we don't want additional hardship in the game, but we need to strike a very careful balance between hardship and unplayability, especially where new players are concerned.

I hope this helps anyone who's interested kind of understand the thought processes behind why we staff, who sometimes appear as ogres or angels, do what we do concerning plotlines.  There are a lot of factors involved, and it's not just a coinflip on a good/bad day as to whether we agree to support you or not. 

[Aaron Goulet]

Thank you for putting a staff perspective on this.  The more we, the players, know about the process, the easier it will be to tailor our plots to be more realistic.