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

[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.