Game Administration Discussion: The Homeless Ninja Syndrome

[jriley]

Rich wasn't the most popular kid on the school bus.  He wasn't the toughest.  He wasn't handsome, or the favorite of the girls.  But he was the kid in our neighborhood who had the most impressive collection of dungeons and dragons rule books.

Which means that he sort of became the dungeon master by default.  And he was about two years older than us, and good at math, which meant he could calculate THAC0 on the fly.  And his parents wouldn't get home from work until seven in the evening. 

And he had Dark Sun books.  Dark Sun!  We rolled up characters.  I think I got stuck playing an elemental cleric. 

And we almost ran into a show-stopper.  Rich told us that we'd need seven PCs to play, but the problem is that we only had three dudes in my gang.  We thought we were up the creek without a paddle, until Rich notified us of some secret, obscure clause in an unpublished set of DM rules that allowed him to run the game with the party of seven, including three PCs and four NPCs played by him. 

Obviously, this sounded somewhat dodgy, especially when Rich told us that his characters would be starting three levels higher than the PCs would, due to having previous gaming experience with another group of players, whom we were not allowed to meet.*

But we could not ignore his aforementioned credentials, and so agreed to his plan.  And so the adventures began.

We started to run into trouble early on.  Despite the fact that everyone in our group pretty much already had storylines for our characters that we wanted to pursue, Rich was somewhat insistent that we adhere to his plots.  And his plots were always really Byzantine.  I couldn't tell you for the life of me why exactly it was we wanted to locate the Secret Map of Raj Erabit for Lord Fancy Pants d' Tyr, but it sure seemed important to Rich's plot for us to do so. 

Rich's plot hooks always involved a threat.  Some group of infallible mercenaries would always round us up for some important capo or other, and then said capo would always task us to steal the Ring of Doom from Ocnan the Destoryer, or to cleanse the village well of Waverly from the poison that Gargamel, Slayer of Smurfs had dumped in there...and if we failed at our task, the Legion of Infallible Mercenaries would of course hunt us down and kill us.

I didn't get it...if the Boss had the Legion of Infallible Mercenaries in his employment, why would he hire a group of misfit escaped gladiators to go boost the Rind of Doom, instead of just sending the Legion? 

"Because he wants to test your loyalty," Rich assured me, "Wealthy and powerful people are always doing crap like that to prospective underlings."

I was only fourteen and hadn't met any actual wealthy or powerful people.  Rich was sixteen, and so I just kind of assumed he had.  I accepted his word for it, and no longer questioned this.

And then there was the combat.  Lots of combat.  If we had to walk across town from the armor smith to the bakery, we would get jumped four separate times by gangs of well-armed city elves.  Why were elves going after a group of armed, muscle-bound, impoverished gladiators?  I never got a good answer to that question.  The elves themselves tended to have about three or four hit dice more than our PCs, which meant that they would have had us for breakfast, except for the fact that those four of Rich's NPCs were with us.  The NPCs all had nearly perfect stats and of course magical weapons, so it was really only a matter of waiting while they made a series of lengthy dice rolls for them to plow through the elven gang-bangers.  And sometimes that's all I did was watch.  Let's face it, after my elementalist had burned through all of his spells, what could I really do against Gith and Raiders except wait for the dungeon master's own pet NPCs to mop them up for us?

The wastelands was much worse.  They could better have been described as a mosh pot than a desert.  A mosh pit where I hid behind a couple of Rich's NPCs.

The plot elements and rising action were of course little better.  Rich's way of providing a storyline was for us was to throw a series of puzzles at us that he expected us to solve in order to make progress on his sacred plots. 

Sometimes we could solve them.  We were a bright group of nerdy gamers, after all with a strong knowledge of trivia.  About sixty percent of the time, we could figure out a way to navigate through one of Rich's mazes of traps or follow a set of clues needed to solve a murder.  But all too often, we couldn't.  Then our characters had to stand around and wait for Rich's NPCs to finish mocking us while they supplied us with the hints and clues that we needed to fuel guess after guess, eventually stumbling upon the answer through dumb luck.

And it turned out that we had to solve the puzzles.  None of them could be circumvented.  If we tried to dig a tunnel under the maze of traps, an angry 7 hit dice anakore would show up and demand that we stop.  If we tried to bully the inkeeper into letting us borrow his spare key to the Tower of Sorcery so that we could get in without answering a set of riddles, the inkeeper would be revealed to be a retired 12th level assassin, one who couldn't be bullied.  If we tried to bluff our way through a guard roadblock set up by a set of rural villagers, the farm kids would turn out to be 14th level dual warrior/gladiators. 

Come to think of it, I don't think that we as PCs ever once got the drop on anyone.  When we didn't have enough money to buy the obsidian swords we wanted, it turns out that we couldn't raid the tent of the local weaponsmith because his tent would be guarded at night by eleven mercenaries.

When we got bored and wanted to rape the local barmaid, the barmaid turned out to be a level 16 warrior.  Why was she tending bar if she was such a fantastic warrior?  "She makes good tips."

When I noticed that one of Rich's PCs had a better dagger than any of the PCs did, our PC thief was unable to steal it.  Even though he passed his pickpocket check.  "He noticed you, dude," Rich said.

"But we passed the pickpocket check!" I protested.

"Too bad, he noticed you dude.  You better apologize," Rich said.

And so it went.  I tried to hang in there, secure in the fact that once we picked up a few levels, we would no longer be the low men on the totem poles.  We would finally be able to defend ourselves from Gith without the aid of Rich's characters.  We would finally be bad-assed enough to get respect from the town guards.  We would finally have enough skills to accomplish the simplest tasks, such as stealing a dagger.

But this turned out not to be the case.  As we gained in hit dice, so did the gith.  So did the town guards.  Anyone we confronted had better stats and hit points than we did.  Every homeless guy that we tried to bully turned out to be a ninja.

Eventually, my friends and I decided that starting a metal band would be more fun than continuing in Rich's Dark Sun campaign.  I no longer had to play the elementalist.  I got to play the drums.

But all the same I'm glad that I had the experience of playing in Rich's campaign.  I really learned a lot of what not to do when serving as Dungeon Master.

Among other things, I learned the importance of balance.  It's good to have a few important, untouchable NPC in play, but by and large most NPC should have less skill, money, power and social status than the PCs do. 

I've seen some of this trend in Armageddon, notably when I've gotten the drop on NPC characters sometimes.  As important as it is for players to learn how to play good loosers, I think that staff members should be prepared to loose any conflict between a PC and an NPC. 

If you accidentally lead a raptor back to the city gates, the Captain of the Guard Himself comes to yell at you.

If the a staff member thinks that it's not appropriate for your character to be sleeping off wounds in an alley, the Baddest Mugger in all of Tuluk comes to steal your pack.

I understand that staff sometimes feel the need to directly intervene in game play in order to cultivate and enforce a sense of atmosphere and realism.  I support this.  However I feel that they're often heavy-handed when they do this, and that more subtly is called for. 

For example, if a PC accidentally leads a raptor towards the gates, rather than have a soldier come to yell at your PC, why not have a little girl approach them, "Hey mister, did the guards just kill a monster for you?  Wow!  You know, a once saw them beat the crap out of some guy for doing what you just did.  You sure are lucky.  Hey, can you loan me five coins so that I can eat today?"

Or for another example, if a PC attempts to sleep off wounds in an alley**, instead of sending an off-duty Bynner to go beat their ass, why not have some hobo approach them, and pester them for money until they pay him off?  This can make the point much better, really. 

And what if the PCs try to beat up the helpful little girl?  What if the PCs try to beat up the annoying hobo?  Staff should probably let PCs get away with this.  There really isn't any need to give the hobo better combat abilities than a half-giant.  There really isn't a need to assume the helpful little girls older brother (who happens to be wielding a poisoned dagger) is waiting around the corner.  It's really okay for PCs to harass, coerce and bully NPC.  This isn't GI Joe and it isn't a Brother's Grimm fairy tale.  In short, Armageddon isn't a morality tale at all.  It's meant to model reality, where the bad guys often win and both bullying, coercion and intimidation are parts of life.

Armageddon is a pyramid.  The templars bully the guards.  The guards bully the commoners.  The working-class commoners bully elves, the homeless and children.  Every PC should have somebody to bully, unless of course you're playing an elf, a hobo or a child.  In the case of commoners, they should be able to dump on hapless NPCs.  When the staff stamp their approval on your character application for a successful hunter or mercenary, they're granting you license to lord over spice-addicts, racial minorities and the unemployed.  You're low on the pyramid, but certainly far from the bottom.






*Speculation began that these other players did in fact exist, but that they'd banned Rich from their gaming group. 
**Or maybe they should just let players get away with this.

[Synthesis]

If anything, the Staff don't intervene enough, as far as my experience is concerned.

I've:

a) Gotten away with some really ridiculous shit that I honestly shouldn't have, simply because there were no PCs around and nobody cared and/or was paying attention upstairs

b) Had to put up with some really ridiculous shit from other PCs because nobody cared and/or was paying attention upstairs.

To my knowledge, I've never had an "uber" NPC loaded on me when I didn't deserve it. Once, I got a bunch of gith...but my character was actually badass enough to kill all of them that didn't flee.  Once I got a bunch of mantis...but that's what you get when you knock on the clutch's front door.

As far as storylines are concerned:  I'd rather have Staff in charge of it, anyway.  I barely trust most of you folks to write your own descriptions and backgrounds, much less write the goddamn over-arching storyline.  If some of the players had their way, there'd be a psionic desert-elf sorcerer-king secretly running Tuluk, a trio of half-giant magnates controlling Red Storm, and over time Allanak would be a pile of rubble after endless waves of flash-powder mayhem targeting every player-built structure in the city.

Not only that, but in order to maintain continuity between 1.arm and 2.arm, there are certain events that have to take place, no matter what.  Don't like it?  Buy out Wizards of the Coast and grant Armageddon a license to use Dark Sun material.

[KankWhisperer]

If staff involvement was.......consistent then I would like it more. You have subtle and then you have the spam loaders of NPC killbots.
If a staff is watching and they load something great. I just don't like it when a PC (seemingly) wishes up because the ride is too boring for them.
The staff now is much kinder and gentler. I'd shudder if  an  old staffer was in charge and I knew it.

I have my doubts wizards of the coast even cares. I think someone high up has a fetish for cat people sex. They want to see long and detailed mudsex sessions with scampering light clawing and three line emotes about tail stroking and swishing. If I play arm 2 every character will be one of the hairless lizard guys with a goal (he will not be shaken of) which has something to do with exterminating the cat abominations.

[Kankman]

...there'd be a psionic desert-elf sorcerer-king secretly running Tuluk, a trio of half-giant magnates controlling Red Storm, and over time Allanak would be a pile of rubble after endless waves of flash-powder mayhem targeting every player-built structure in the city.

Woah... Way too much IC info there...

[Jingo]

I don't get it. What's the problem?

[Spoon]

The working-class commoners bully elves, the homeless and children.

Then get stabbed by all three.


I only played D&D once or twice when I was about 12, and had a similar experience with the older DM. He was basically letting us partake in whatever crap he could come up with in his head, and any choices we made other than what he wanted were instantly foiled. I attacked his NPC that was with us (sounds very, very much like what you went through) and saw his eyes go wide when he rolled. Then he told me I had missed. Sometimes, people have their head stuck so far up their arse they have no concept of empathy.

[Qzzrbl]

I am the most badass DM I know.... For the two or three times I did so.

Planned for -every goddamn- situation and scenario to have five or six different outcomes depending on PC actions....

But then my D&D buddies moved away.



But yeah, I kinda agree with what the OP says.

I've never really had anything horrible happen to by my staff interaction.... I've never had 'em not give me a fighting chance with animated NPC interaction.

But I've heard some stories of some pretty silly things.

Most are -way- old though.

[jriley]

If staff involvement was.......consistent then I would like it more. You have subtle and then you have the spam loaders of NPC killbots.
If a staff is watching and they load something great. I just don't like it when a PC (seemingly) wishes up because the ride is too boring for them.
The staff now is much kinder and gentler. I'd shudder if  an  old staffer was in charge and I knew it.

Oh no.  You're absolutely right.  The fact that I can even post a thread like this is a sign of the times, about how good we have things now.  If any newer players are reading this, please know that we as players did not always have things this good.  We are playing in a golden age where the staff are truly committed to providing us with a high quality game.  If you notice, this is the first thread that I've posted in at least four years that provides any sort of critique of the administration, and even so it's a very minor complaint.  Things are good, and getting better by leaps and bounds.  I enjoy very good relationships with the staff and commend the improvements that they have made.

I have my doubts wizards of the coast even cares. I think someone high up has a fetish for cat people sex. They want to see long and detailed mudsex sessions with scampering light clawing and three line emotes about tail stroking and swishing. If I play arm 2 every character will be one of the hairless lizard guys with a goal (he will not be shaken of) which has something to do with exterminating the cat abominations.

TSR?  No, I can confirm that they do not care.  I had it in writing at one point from their attorneys.  It's not that difficult to get their blessing for something like this, or rather it wasn't under the climate when I last approached them over something like this. 

I have a different opinion than you, though.  You see, the license that TSR would likely grant would stipulate that a MUD could be made using TSR source material provided that the MUD is nonprofit.  My belief is that Arm 2 was hatched in part from a misunderstanding that the Armageddon game could one day produce a profit, something that I believe is not the case. 

As far as the lolcats go, I share your revulsion of them, however I think that ultimately they provide an advantage to us as players.  Currently, when you walk around the Armageddon game you're interacting with PCs who are played by women that have like 12 cats and haven't left their house in over a month...but you have no idea which of the PCs are controlled by these people.  In Arm 2, you'll know exactly who to avoid because they, for the most part, will be playing lolcats.  This represents progress.

I don't get it. What's the problem?

I'm not diagnosing a problem per se, so much as I'm benchmarking a standard of NPC role-play.  If you read the GDB, you'll find a couple of hundred threads outlining good PC role-play, but comparitively little discussion about NPC role-play.  I wanted to broach the topic.  More than anything else, I wanted to share a parable of what not to do.  Personally, I wouldn't say that the sky is on fire or anything like that. 

But I've heard some stories of some pretty silly things.

Most are -way- old though.

Oh yeah.  I so agree.  We're living in an enlightened era here.  It's what makes this sort of discussion possible.  Once upon a time we couldn't even be discussing this.  If I didn't have a solid trust in the staff and how good things have gotten, I wouldn't even have brought something like this up.

[Marauder Moe]

Huh?  When did this "enlightened era" begin?  That is to say... when were our staffers less than awesome/fair?

[Talia]

A few thoughts in response on NPCs and animation:

-- When staff need to animate on-the-fly in response to a situation, we usually choose NPCs that are already available in the immediate environment. There aren't any little girl NPCs that hang around the Allanak gates, but there are soldiers. So soldiers get animated.

-- Players are really very good at getting the maximum positive benefit for their PCs from the game world and other PCs. Staff don't need to help players with doing this. But fairly often, the positive benefits that players are accruing to their PCs are gotten without regard to the virtual environment, or to how the code should (rather than can) be used, or to fairness to other players. So it's the role of staff to provide the push-back of the virtual world, and extra challenge.

-- You will just have to trust me on this, but staff don't care about "winning." We care about the integrity and balance of the game world, about players being fair to each other, and about players having fun. I am sure you all know about the no-harm policy that is in place as well; this states that we cannot specifically plan to do harm to PCs. Yes, sometimes harm comes to PCs in the course of an animation, but the general sentiment of staff at such times is, "Man, I really wish they had run."

-- Sometimes we do have the opportunity to create or play low-on-the-totem-pole NPCs. The new player-driven direction of the game specifically states that staff will be more frequently animating the low-level NPCs rather than the big bosses. The ability to animate these NPCs varies, though, and depends on a lot of stuff. You probably don't see them as much as we'd like you to, and we probably don't get to animate them as much as we'd like to. I don't really think there's a way to fix this, however; there are lots of times I would like to animate just for flavor, but my clans are deeply involved in other stuff and/or I only have about 15 minutes to be online, and/or...you get me. Flavor animations often fall to the wayside when there is more important stuff going on.

[Salt Merchant]

I think someone high up has a fetish for cat people sex. They want to see long and detailed mudsex sessions with scampering light clawing and three line emotes about tail stroking and swishing. If I play arm 2 every character will be one of the hairless lizard guys with a goal (he will not be shaken of) which has something to do with exterminating the cat abominations.

 Maybe I'll join you in that.

[Oleupata]

The new player-driven direction of the game specifically states that staff will be more frequently animating the low-level NPCs rather than the big bosses.

Enlarging on this, we are still getting used to this, just as you are. Staff, like veteran players, have been with this game for a long time, even the newer ones like Talia and me. Some expectations and thought patterns, in players and staff, still gear towards the old staffing method, rather than the new.

This will lessen with time and practice, and I believe lead to a closer and happier bond between staff and players, and specifically between players and the environment.

The ability to animate these NPCs varies, though, and depends on a lot of stuff. You probably don't see them as much as we'd like you to, and we probably don't get to animate them as much as we'd like to.

Different staffers have different specialties. I think we all like to animate, at least in theory. But I'll let you in on a little secret: for me at least, animations are hard. I don't want to interrupt players' stories. I don't want to come off too strongly, or too weakly. I don't know whom to animate, or what to do once I pick someone. I find it difficult to get enough under an NPC's skin. They aren't characters; I didn't make them, and I don't always know how they're meant to react. Also, I find it difficult to keep up with players, because while they're well-adjusted to their characters and those abilities, I'm still in that awkward stage of learning to wear a new skin.

This may lend itself to the perceived (I don't want to say 'problem', because the OP has made it clear that's not what is meant) point. Loading up a pack of gith is a whole lot easier than hopping into Vennant for a casual chat.

None of that is an excuse, nor meant to be. I've played tabletop games with exactly the same problems described in the OP. I've left them. I've done my best to run mine to a higher standard, and I think this game should be, too.

As an aside to those griping about the ghaati in Arm 2: stay on topic or make another thread.

[Kiara]

Just a suggestion: How about you as staff pick a particular NPC in your area to focus on animating more than others. Having more time spent with the npc can help you "get under their skin" and develop more of a feel for how to play them, and consequently illustrate their attitude/demeanor.

Picking an npc that is near heavy traffic would be best.

I suggest:

Bartenders
Stablehands
Servers
Gate guards
Beggars
A specific tribal in one of the camps
A non-generic soldier

Just some thoughts.

[Adhira]

I think that this is a valid discussion, and I don't want to derail it too much, but I do want to respond to a couple of things here.

First to the OP, if instances such as you state are happening on a regular basis then I'm very surprised.  If anyone out there feels that animations that happen are overly ham-fisted, or being used solely to bludgeon people to a set of actions (ie the bynner in the rinth scenario) then please submit a request.  This is not what I'm seeing up here, if I'm missing it, then it would be good to know.   While these instances can occur I believe in the couple of years that staffers are more prone to animating to lend a hand, or entertain a newb than what is being stated here.  Of course a horde of gith will still get you if you're wandering in their territory, and the muark will shoot you if you slide on their waterfalls... regardless, if these instances you state are happening please send us the logs so we can make sure that things are on an even keel.

For this statement:

My belief is that Arm 2 was hatched in part from a misunderstanding that the Armageddon game could one day produce a profit, something that I believe is not the case. 

I need to strongly refute this.  There is not, nor has there ever been, any plans to make money from Armageddon, in whatever version it is in. This was in no way a motivation for the Arm 2 decision.

Kiara - staff are encouraged to do exactly as you have stated and many do have npcs that are specific to them.  What staff don't have is the time to invest in one npc to the same degree that you can invest in a character, there's always that feeling that it's an npc, and you often have to have several of them to meet the needs of the clan groups you're involved with.   

[Bilanthri]

Rich wasn't the most popular kid on the school bus...

I only played D&D once or twice when I was about 12, and had a similar experience with the older DM. He was basically letting us partake in whatever crap he could come up with in his head, and any choices we made other than what he wanted were instantly foiled. I attacked his NPC that was with us (sounds very, very much like what you went through) and saw his eyes go wide when he rolled. Then he told me I had missed. Sometimes, people have their head stuck so far up their arse they have no concept of empathy.

These are prime examples of deus ex machina, a literary tool (i.e. cheat) where the conflict is resolved by something inherent to the setting rather than the players. It's very common for young writers to fall into this method, especially when they have written the driving plot without regard for the characters that will carry it. There are occasions where this can work in an RPG, but it usually makes the players feel powerless.

One technique that I have used (when invited to play in a game, only to find that I was declared the GM upon arrival) is provide the players with a large number of small conflicts that require their direct action to overcome, so that when the session ends with an example of deus ex machina, they feel like they have successfully thwarted the threat simply by surviving long enough. In this application, it's best to use simple things to solve the conflict. It can be far more believable when the trackers that have been hounding you for hours finally corner you only to find that you don't have they thing they though you did, rather than that they are buried in a rock slide that kills all the foes while leaving the players relatively unscathed.

[Lizzie]

I'll admit, I was spoiled when I first started. It was before they had the so-called player-driven system we allegedly have now. I had clan boss NPCs who showed up once in awhile, who were responsive to in-character, in-game, interaction. I had interactions with npcs that were clearly members of other clans, or of no known clan. I had interactions with animated tregils even.

Then this whole player-driven thing started. The staff kept insisting that they were going to have "more frequent non-boss" than boss. But what I saw, was a complete elimination of boss interaction, and the non-boss interaction dwindled down to nearly nothing but the occasional animated tregil. If you actually wanted IC interaction with your clan boss, you had to e-mail the IC rumor (rumor has it that Amos Salarr wants to talk to his boss about the defiler who keeps laying ash eggs in the barracks) and wait for an IC e-mailed answer (your elders would have told you that they don't know about any defiler laying ash eggs.) and you'd have to spend days and days going back and forth out of game via e-mails, spending time out of game that could be better spent (and much more fun) in-game with a clan boss NPC.

I appreciate the things that the staff DOES do for the game.

But I don't appreciate that it came at the expense of the staff actually playing it with the rest of us.

[Riev]

I appreciate the things that the staff DOES do for the game.

But I don't appreciate that it came at the expense of the staff actually playing it with the rest of us.

These are my thoughts exactly. I often hear on the (OMIGOD) OOC channels about someone back in the day fighting an animated creature, or sitting at the bar and suddenly Clint bursts into conversation. I, however, seem to never see this. Perhaps it is my playstyle, or playtimes, or what have you. I am not saying I wish everything was animated by staff, but even a Templar walking into a bar, causing a ruckus, and then directing any "player traffic" to the active Templars would be a treat.

Heck. I walked into a bar once, and there was a -really- high level GMH NPC just sitting there, talking to people. It took me a good 20 minutes to realize who and what they were, and when I found out, OOCly I was floored. I had forgotten those people exist in this low-fantasy world where a PC can't rise much above Sergeant or Lieutenant.

[Voular]

I didn't realize that the boss of my first character was an NPC until only a little while ago. When I started to think about it.


.. Damn you, Bleys!

[Potaje]

I appreciate the things that the staff DOES do for the game.

But I don't appreciate that it came at the expense of the staff actually playing it with the rest of us.

These are my thoughts exactly. I often hear on the (OMIGOD) OOC channels about someone back in the day fighting an animated creature, or sitting at the bar and suddenly Clint bursts into conversation. I, however, seem to never see this. Perhaps it is my playstyle, or playtimes, or what have you. I am not saying I wish everything was animated by staff, but even a Templar walking into a bar, causing a ruckus, and then directing any "player traffic" to the active Templars would be a treat.

Heck. I walked into a bar once, and there was a -really- high level GMH NPC just sitting there, talking to people. It took me a good 20 minutes to realize who and what they were, and when I found out, OOCly I was floored. I had forgotten those people exist in this low-fantasy world where a PC can't rise much above Sergeant or Lieutenant.

I believe a lot of times its being in the right place at the right time. I myself have at lease half a dozen times been witness to spontaneous Npc animations, including Client, most with out a wish up, or prior arrangement. Just one moment theres interaction and you slide into it with them, then there gone and you slide out. Most has been casual, not even there for a "need", just a touch of life.

[evil_erdlu]

To tell the truth, staff doesn't intervene enough.

Backpack stolen in the alley? Eh.. As a PC, I've stolen a few backpacks myself and I had a few got stolen. Easiest to steal, most logical to boot when you have a knife in hand. First of all; believe me, it may be a PC. Second; with your 'novice' and 'apprentice' skills, everyone's a badass compared to you. At the base of this strange occurance lies the truth that - sleeping in anywhere to heal your wounds is stupid. I wish there were NPC physicians in cities that heal you very slowly throwing out random emotes if you had the money. I _hate_ when my characters get forced to sleep, so most often I start running away when my health is enough to regen on its own as I RP it.

Captain of the guard? Our logics must be different. I find it realistic to get yelled at by a soldier/captain/black robed templar when I lead a dangerous animal to the city. If there was no intention and foul play, I would be teensy slightly bit annoyed if it came down to being jailed, beaten, having limbs broken etc. but just being yelled at because soldiers had to risk their lives? Acceptable.

Rich? Railroading?

[Wolfsong]

I think his complaint was that if you, lowly Joe Amos, accidentally lead a spider to the gates of Allanak, the captain of the guard is the one who appears (most often, or in that situation, whatever) to bitch you out, taking time out of his presumably very busy schedule -just- -for- -you- - instead of having Private Amos Amos do it, or even Corporal Amos Bumpkin.

[Shalooonsh]

First of all, I can unequivocably say that over 50% of staff animations does involve simple interactions.  Animations of weather, of environment, of simple NPCs like jozhals or vestrics, shik or bamuk.   Animations of bosses to give purpose, animation of trainers to keep idle players interested.  Staff doesn't just sit up there waiting to eat brainz, as a very small, very vocal bunch of "ill-treated" players would like you to believe.  Staff doesn't harbor grudges, since there's no need to do so.

As for animations of guards when monsters are kited to the gates, well of course the ranking gate commander is going to be the one to speak to you.  He or She is the one with the authoritah to do so.  Every guard shift in every guarded area has a senior ranking individual.  Are they always a Captain?  No, but you can be pretty sure that there's someone more important than Private Dolt running the show if the entrance is important enough to have guards. 

As for the thought that you're scared of the 'old school' staffers, that's ludicrous.  This new crop has intensively studied our bloodletting techniques, and has highly refined the system.  You may think you're high on the hog, but it's simply not the case.  They're just as vicious, and they're just as creative.  The only change is that now they have even more awesome code to improve your play experience with.

As for the cat people comments, go ahead and think what you will.  I've provided plenty of evidence that they aren't anything you think they are, yet you persist.

I didn't realize that the boss of my first character was an NPC until only a little while ago. When I started to think about it.


.. Damn you, Bleys!

That's precisely what I was aiming for.  Thanks for the compliment, bud.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

You Fale for being a Legend. Revoke your hiatus. Serve the masses once more. Save the cat-people.

[jriley]

I think his complaint was that if you, lowly Joe Amos, accidentally lead a spider to the gates of Allanak, the captain of the guard is the one who appears (most often, or in that situation, whatever) to bitch you out, taking time out of his presumably very busy schedule -just- -for- -you- - instead of having Private Amos Amos do it, or even Corporal Amos Bumpkin.

Thanks for emphasizing that, Wolfsong.  But really, I usually expect to encounter a certain amount of static to a post like the one that I made, for the reason that some people are highly conservative and dislike anything that represents a potential change to the game.  Also, there's another group of posters who like to post something contrary to every post, just to play devil's advocate.  And then you usually get one or two posters who have misinterpreted your intention, as you suggest. 

Of course in this case, I think there are one or two people who legitimately have an axe to grind, for the reason that they were accustomed to having Great Master Lord Borsail pop online periodically and hand down edicts to them, or they got a real charge over seeing Amos the Bartender emote scratching his nose.  They are the ones who are short-changed by the policy shift that has benefited the rest of us.

All the same, I wanted to make it clear that I sincerely do like it when the staff pops online to harass my character, except when it's in the form of nagging.  Engagement trumps nagging every single time.  If the staff have a point to make about my interfacing with the game world, it's better made through GDB discussion or through email. 

I'll try to better explain my point, but I just chugged a forty, my second of the day, and so I'm having trouble typing.  My apologies.  I'll try again tomorrow.

[Is Friday]

Speaking from a perspective of having military experience, this is my take on the spider situation:

Generally, Corporals and Sergeants would try to keep a Captain from getting involved--but if the Captain sees something and decides to act on it, there's really nothing that the lower ranking officers can do about it. If the militia is closing the gates, the Captain is probably gonna notice. I mean, c'mon, let's be real here...

If you look over how the gate operates during the day (always open in 'nak,) then you have to assume that someone is overseeing the searches and making sure everything is kosher. So far as I know, the Captain's sole duty while on gate duty is to get pissed off about things upsetting the norm.

p.s. having a Captain of the militia pissed off at you should be just as scary as a blue robe to a commoner.

[KankWhisperer]

Staff doesn't harbor grudges, since there's no need to do so.

And cops don't plant evidence and judges care about justice and so forth. You are only human.

[Synthesis]

Eh, I've been banned from the GDB quite a few times, sent staff complaints about it in, and generally been a little bastard about it, and the staff members responsible don't seem to take it personally.  Sometimes you're just having one of those weeks....

I was even slain by nessalin once for doing something completely retarded, and maybe a year and a half later he set up one of the most potentially game-breaking special-apps ever for me.  (They even had to add a bit of code to the game to make it work properly.)  To that dude on that rooftop:  no, I wasn't twinking out and power-emoting with your knives, it really was magick.

[Talia]

This is a tiny bit off-topic from the original post, but definitely a thought related to other thoughts in this thread about animations and staff involvement...

Character reports and requests are immensely helpful to staff in knowing what you're up to, and knowing what you're up to gives us an opportunity to respond in a lot of ways that I think most players would find very enjoyable. For example, if you send me a notice ahead of time that you and the clan are doing X at time Y, then I can see whether I can be online during that time (or if I can't maybe my fellow clan staff can help out) in order to throw animation stuff your way. If you let me know about plots, I can do the staff side of "player-driven" and help you create a story. If you ask up front whether a particular project is OOCly feasible, I can give you a yes or no and then you have some direction to pursue ICly if you want (or, you don't go chasing something that's not feasible and then end up feeling frustrated).

Even though I do try to monitor my clan members when I'm online, that is just never going to be enough--there's too much going on at any one time and it's only a snippet of the story. But if you communicate with us, then there's so much we can help you do. If you don't communicate with us, it's fairly unlikely that you will magickally get the interaction you're hoping for.

[Sunburned]

All I ask of the staff is that they allow room for clans to be altered by the players.  I think we have a tendency to forget that a great deal of clan documentation was written by old players of the clan who were willing to put in the work.

I'm of the opinion that we're in a self-defeating cycle where players believe that their input and creative contributions will be discarded, and therefore don't try... and that staff, in their effort to maintain balance, tend to be strongly suspicious of policy and operating changes within an existing clan.

Staff, I realize that Expansion Division was a whooooole lot of cowboy, but please don't consider it a failed experiment, as an example.  I don't know if you were there, but despite all the antics, it produced some of the best RP I've ever seen, and you better believe that any highly inspired clan is going to have at least a little of one and lot of the other.

I didn't realize that the boss of my first character was an NPC until only a little while ago. When I started to think about it.


.. Damn you, Bleys!

That's precisely what I was aiming for.  Thanks for the compliment, bud.

My short time with the Sun Runners with even those simple animations, Shalooonsh, made it one of my most memorable clan experiences, all four days of playtime.  Sorry for storing.  Jobs suck.

[Talia]

All I ask of the staff is that they allow room for clans to be altered by the players.  I think we have a tendency to forget that a great deal of clan documentation was written by old players of the clan who were willing to put in the work.

I'm of the opinion that we're in a self-defeating cycle where players believe that their input and creative contributions will be discarded, and therefore don't try... and that staff, in their effort to maintain balance, tend to be strongly suspicious of policy and operating changes within an existing clan.

Staff, I realize that Expansion Division was a whooooole lot of cowboy, but please don't consider it a failed experiment, as an example.  I don't know if you were there, but despite all the antics, it produced some of the best RP I've ever seen, and you better believe that any highly inspired clan is going to have at least a little of one and lot of the other.

Speaking generally of changes to clans...yes, game balance and internal clan balance are always prime considerations. Another item that is taken into consideration when looking at changes within clans is staff workload. To put it shortly, if the proposed change is going to create more work for staff, it will not be considered very favorably. Often that is a deciding factor. In an ideal world, maybe it wouldn't be? But staff time will undoubtedly always be a limited resource, and currently is even more limited because some of it goes toward ARM 2.

So if you're encountering something that you feel is "strong suspicion" of an idea that to you merely seems fun and enhancing, what you may actually be experiencing is a staff reaction to increasing time overhead. Evaluating your own proposals in terms of "will this make things easier or harder on the staff" is probably a good idea.

[Sunburned]

I'm not really talking about planning RPTs with flaming mekillots chasing your wagon - I was talking more about policy.

The staffing policy towards plots and clans has changed, and the clan documentation has not.  The power of documentation is that it defines roles for people who are playing in clans, possibly for the first time, and must provide guidance for others.

Changing staff policy was, no doubt, well thought out, but easy enough to implement.  Changing the documentation of clans is certainly not easy to implement, but I feel its necessary, and if anyone (player or staff) wants to put in the work to make it happen, it should be considered independent of its source.

[Talia]

Right, the structure of a clan as documented also has implications for staff time, which players often do not realize. I am not speaking of RPTs and animations and so on. When players advocate for changes to clan structure, they should think of how such changes will impact staff time. And I don't mean staff time required in making the changes to the documentation, but ongoing administrative overhead.

I don't want to get into specifics, but I will make a totally fictional example: Player of Fifi, House Fale recruit, proposes that House Fale should get a special training dummy so that recruits can practice backstab. Staff is not only going to consider whether this is ICly realistic, OOCly unbalancing to other clans, and will take coding and setup time, they are going to look at the proposal in terms of, "Will this require ongoing staff time to administer?" In this particular case, administrative overhead may come down to being the deciding factor, because staff believe that they are going to now have to monitor the ongoing training efforts of Fale recruits constantly to make sure no one is twinking out.

If your proposal makes things harder on staff, that's not "suspicion." That's the fact that staff time will always be a limited resource. It has nothing to do with the fact that players are the ones proposing the change, and quite a bit to do with the fact that players generally don't bear the brunt of changes.

[X-D]

When I have changed clan docs, I always go about it a certain way.

First, Identify the problem with the docs. Then ask staff about it, if staff agrees it could or should be improved/added to/changed, I then submit my idea for the fix and offer to write new.

If they like the idea I begin work.

When I am writing the docs, the top four things I keep in mind, in order are.

Fit, fun, playability, staff workload.

Fit is first only because the other three are easy alone, but working on them while still making sure everything fits into the clan spirit and the game world tends to be alot harder.

I have found that staff is not closed minded on clan doc changes as long as the proposed changes improve on the four things listed. But often people wish to make changes that are outside the four, usually outside the "fit" IE, the perception staff has on how the clan should be and its place in the world.

[Sunburned]

Maybe I need to be more direct.

I'm saying that in the old documentation, a lot of emphasis is placed on a top-down structure, which can no longer be relevant to current staffing for clan management.

Documentation needs to be rewritten to make clans more manageable for the PC leaders of clans, while still providing them with guidance.  I don't think that most players with any leadership experience are going to write in their own dependence on the staff for running their clan, simply because the old models of clan structure, being more staff dependent, have proven their faults.

X-D, I think the process is pretty much the same for any player who's putting any serious consideration into trying to alter documentation, because it requires the same process to identify the problem.  And though I can't speak for all the players, if I ever request something to be changed, I don't try to reinvent the wheel, because, frankly, that requires the most effort.

Staff responsiveness to taking player contributions also depends on the need of the tribe/clan that's being altered.  If its an established GMH, I expect things to move painstakingly slow.  If its a small raiding tribe, response is probably going to be a great deal quicker.

Maybe its that too few players make an effort to work toward the improvement of documentation, and more structured avenues need to be outlined for the submission and approval process.

[X-D]

I was actually agreeing with you Sunburned, my post was directed at other readers who might not otherwise put in the effert to identify a problem area and put in the work to get it fixed.

Because to be honest, you simply cannot expect staff to go through all the docs of all the clans to revamp them, simply not going to happen.

[Sunburned]

Indeed...

...and I thought your explanation was a good one.

Staff, I guess I just want you all to know that there are players who'd be willing to put in the effort to modify/improve outdated documentation, and all it requires (for me, at least) is a little feedback, a little vision, and a better picture of what works for you guys in terms of staffability.  And again... I think it would be helpful to have a formal submission and review process, because its discouraging when you send stuff in, are thanked, told to wait, and never receive word again... then the staff rotation happens, and you're back at square-one.

[Zoltan]

Indeed...

...and I thought your explanation was a good one.

Staff, I guess I just want you all to know that there are players who'd be willing to put in the effort to modify/improve outdated documentation, and all it requires (for me, at least) is a little feedback, a little vision, and a better picture of what works for you guys in terms of staffability.  And again... I think it would be helpful to have a formal submission and review process, because its discouraging when you send stuff in, are thanked, told to wait, and never receive word again... then the staff rotation happens, and you're back at square-one.

Wouldn't this be handled better as a direct request or email to the staff in question? That way you can be all specific, and you'll know they'll see it. If I were looking to make a change, I'd just keep pestering them until I'm told specifically to piss off. Stuff slips through cracks and gets forgotten.

X-D's four factors are awesome. I've never been in a position where I would want to update clan docs or anything, but that's the way I'd go about it too.

[Sunburned]

If it were merely for handling a single submission, Zoltan, then I wouldn't have posted; this is not so much a personal gripe as me expressing what I feel should still be a priority in the current game (having functional, current documentation to encourage better functioning clans), with a footnote suggesting that having a formal review process might be helpful, and perhaps even inspire more players to assist in updating docs.

[Kryos]

As far as the OP goes, agreed, but with a caveat to advise to both staff and players.

Example 1:
I've been hamfisted in Arm by staff.  It was quite clear that only one outcome was acceptable to a situation occurring and when my PC thwarted that, an instant You Lose second force showed up and plastered my PC.  Plots, intense role play, and days of time all thrown away because a staff member wanted to kill someone.  Their plot, their way.  I'm still convinced of that to this day, and I can be pretty reasonable in hindsight.

Example 2:
And on another time, I *felt* wronged, but totally misunderstood the situation.  Staff had no intention of doing a deus ex you die, but another pc turned it into that.

The caveat:  be careful, really, on both ends. 

And now I'm going to talk about something that I'm sure will make me piles of friends.  This is me expressing thoughts and asking why, so to speak.  Its not intended to be hostile.

I do not think Armageddon is a player driven game.  Up to a point, sure.  But if you try to do something outside staff's vision for the world, you're going to get denied.  Hard.  It still feels like their sandbox(bazing!  Sandbox.  Get it?).

Lastly, a question for staff.  Is there a hard cap to PC positions(attainable prosperity/power/social status/world influence) in the world?  It certainly feels like it.  If so, how is that player driven?

Disclaimer: Kryos loves Armageddon.  Kryos has memories of Armegeddon that will likely stick with him for the rest of his life.  Because Kryos loves Armageddon, he tries to improve it. 

[brytta.leofa]

I do not think Armageddon is a player driven game.  Up to a point, sure.  But if you try to do something outside staff's vision for the world, you're going to get denied.  Hard.  It still feels like their sandbox(bazing!  Sandbox.  Get it?).

The easiest way for staff to interpret what you're saying is: "If you try to do something unrealistic for the world, you're going to get denied."  And, y'know, maybe that is what you're saying.

But you may be saying instead that staff can let personal taste intrude too far in selecting which plotlines (of multiple plots that are reasonable and valid for the world) to support.

(I don't play leaders and have no special dog in this fight; just hoping to clarify.)

[Nyr]

Example 1:
I've been hamfisted in Arm by staff.  It was quite clear that only one outcome was acceptable to a situation occurring and when my PC thwarted that, an instant You Lose second force showed up and plastered my PC.  Plots, intense role play, and days of time all thrown away because a staff member wanted to kill someone.  Their plot, their way.  I'm still convinced of that to this day, and I can be pretty reasonable in hindsight.

Evidence being...?  I've looked through all correspondence CCed to MUD, your accounts notes, and the IDB, and don't see (or recall) a case where staff loaded up a second force to plaster your PC--any of your PCs.  If you'd like, put in a staff complaint request (there's not one of those, either).  Saying stuff like this when you haven't addressed it with staff (or it hasn't been looked into by staff) does seem a bit disingenuous, at least to me.

I do not think Armageddon is a player driven game.  Up to a point, sure.  But if you try to do something outside staff's vision for the world, you're going to get denied.  Hard.  It still feels like their sandbox(bazing!  Sandbox.  Get it?).

You're entitled to think so, but again, I don't see evidence of that happening to you.  I don't have a problem with people thinking this, though.  It's not going to change the policy of the game, but we can't force players to believe something different than their beliefs.

Lastly, a question for staff.  Is there a hard cap to PC positions(attainable prosperity/power/social status/world influence) in the world?  It certainly feels like it.  If so, how is that player driven?

A starter PC isn't going to become a noble unless there's a Grey Hunt.  A starter PC isn't ever going to become a templar.  A PC can try to hamstring an entire city-state.  PCs have done this before.  A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up.  A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up.  There's a point of diminishing returns, when promoting someone past a certain point means an excessive amount of staff work that we will not engage in (instead of providing assistance or fleshing out the world around that PC, we'd end up having to have a countering force of equal rank attempting to thwart their PCs, so that the rest of the gameworld is represented) and an excessive amount of changes to playing style that most players wouldn't subject themselves to (GMH Heads aren't scary if they show up at the Retreat every day to drink with their buddies).  At that point, we usually will engage in dialogue with the player about storage and their PC turning NPC/vNPC as part of the clan.  This has been done several times.  

[Sokotra]

I have to agree with both sides here.  There's been times where I've done some questionable things - and even now when I really don't have much time to play, my "quick to action" playstyle may seem unreasonable to someone looking in on the outside.  (that goes back to my wanting to make the game more friendly to casual players)  However, most of the time the staff hasn't seemed overly oppressive or anything like that - unless I deserved it.  So I have to give kudos to staff for mostly remaining IC with their NPCs and things like that.

I also have to tell the other side, though, where there have been many other times where rather foul assumptions were made by staff seemingly from them just popping in momentarily to see what I was doing without really knowing or looking at the big picture.  I can't blame them, though, because they are not always able to know and see everything that is going on.  So like I said, I'm not really complaining, because there are both sides to this story - just as there are both views of a players actions in the game.

I guess some of the problems I've had are because of my limited playtime...  which I'm sure is the case for some others out there.  I usually don't have time to plan out and write out and think/feel/breathe/acidtripout everything my character is about.  However, I do love the game and have played it off and on for many years... so I guess everyone has to be considerate of people out there like me and deal with our rawboned playstyle or we should just not play anymore.

[Riev]

A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up.  A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up.

I was wondering if you could provide possible examples of how a Templar or a Noble can work their way up, now that it has been decided that High Templars and Red Robes are not something to be played by PCs, due to the rarity that regular plays would see or interact with these roles? I'm not disagreeing with any particular point or trying to be caustic (though apparently every sentence I type is taken as such) but I would really like to know where a noble could go, in Tuluk. Where would a really long lived, influential templar in Allanak go? If there is no vertical ascension, it must be sideways, but what is the same level as a templar? Another templar?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

PC templars can earn a Red Robe, and play a Red Robe. You may have heard of the last PC Red Robe being retired - that was not because staff decided that there could not be any more Red Robe PCs.

[Nyr]

A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up.  A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up.

I was wondering if you could provide possible examples of how a Templar or a Noble can work their way up, now that it has been decided that High Templars and Red Robes are not something to be played by PCs, due to the rarity that regular plays would see or interact with these roles? I'm not disagreeing with any particular point or trying to be caustic (though apparently every sentence I type is taken as such) but I would really like to know where a noble could go, in Tuluk. Where would a really long lived, influential templar in Allanak go? If there is no vertical ascension, it must be sideways, but what is the same level as a templar? Another templar?

Not all templars are equal, nor are all nobles.  There are lateral opportunities/commendations/rewards/awards for all sponsored roles that don't necessarily mean a promotion to the next level.  Each noble house has factions inside it; each templarate organization has various duties--and even in GMHs, there are always things to do.  Take your pick.

PC templars can earn a Red Robe, and play a Red Robe. You may have heard of the last PC Red Robe being retired - that was not because staff decided that there could not be any more Red Robe PCs.

There's a point of diminishing returns, when promoting someone past a certain point means an excessive amount of staff work that we will not engage in (instead of providing assistance or fleshing out the world around that PC, we'd end up having to have a countering force of equal rank attempting to thwart their PCs, so that the rest of the gameworld is represented) and an excessive amount of changes to playing style that most players wouldn't subject themselves to (GMH Heads aren't scary if they show up at the Retreat every day to drink with their buddies).  At that point, we usually will engage in dialogue with the player about storage and their PC turning NPC/vNPC as part of the clan.  This has been done several times. 

[Kryos]

Nyr, I'll respond in a private contact about incident one, which was a few years ago now.

As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes.  If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?

If someone does enough to threaten a city, rise to the top of their order/house/whatever, its "good on them" not, "better make you an NPC" if you want the game to be truly player driven.

The easiest way for staff to interpret what you're saying is: "If you try to do something unrealistic for the world, you're going to get denied."  And, y'know, maybe that is what you're saying.

This is nothing even close to what I'm saying.  This is your opinion.  Nor does what you posted even come close to being easily derived from what I posted.  If you really require elaboration, I'll gladly expound.  But to me this reads as you trying to say something in a round about manner.  And a not very nice thing at that.

[brytta.leofa]

This is nothing even close to what I'm saying.  This is your opinion.

The bit you quoted is the conclusion to which I'm suggesting interested staff not jump.

[jriley]

And now I'm going to talk about something that I'm sure will make me piles of friends.  This is me expressing thoughts and asking why, so to speak.  Its not intended to be hostile.

Thank you for coming forward, Kryos.  That was a brave post.  And some good questions.  Really, a lot of the process associated with upward mobility is "soft process", meaning that it's undocumented and is not entirely consistent.  There has been some indication that this will be improved in Arm 2.

You're entitled to think so, but again, I don't see evidence of that happening to you.  I don't have a problem with people thinking this, though.  It's not going to change the policy of the game, but we can't force players to believe something different than their beliefs.


A starter PC isn't going to become a noble unless there's a Grey Hunt.  A starter PC isn't ever going to become a templar.  A PC can try to hamstring an entire city-state.  PCs have done this before.  A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up.  A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up.  There's a point of diminishing returns, when promoting someone past a certain point means an excessive amount of staff work that we will not engage in (instead of providing assistance or fleshing out the world around that PC, we'd end up having to have a countering force of equal rank attempting to thwart their PCs, so that the rest of the gameworld is represented) and an excessive amount of changes to playing style that most players wouldn't subject themselves to (GMH Heads aren't scary if they show up at the Retreat every day to drink with their buddies).  At that point, we usually will engage in dialogue with the player about storage and their PC turning NPC/vNPC as part of the clan.  This has been done several times. 

Thanks Nyr.  Very candid and patient response from a staff member.

Try to bear in mind that we as players are not really used to the level of candor and interaction that we've been experiencing recently.  It is just amazing. 

One side effect of this is that a catharsis is taking place, where players feel comfortable coming forward about bad things that happened months or even years ago.  Some of these wounds will take a while to heal. 

I've seen a lot of effort from you personally to respond to players, and it is very much appreciated.  You've been very patient.

[palomar]

As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes.  If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?

If someone does enough to threaten a city, rise to the top of their order/house/whatever, its "good on them" not, "better make you an NPC" if you want the game to be truly player driven.

I think it's important to separate promotions from accomplishments. They're not the same. In most clans you can accomplish lots of things and get credit for it, without necessarily being vertically promoted. After all, vertical promotion only goes so far. As for changing the world, that is quite possible in many ways, I think most of us agree on that. The greater change, the more difficult (and sometimes unlikely) it is to happen.

Rising to the top is something I think a lot of people want, depending on character, clan etc. However, Nyr explained it well:

... promoting someone past a certain point means an excessive amount of staff work ...

... instead of providing assistance or fleshing out the world around that PC, we'd end up having to have a countering force of equal rank attempting to thwart their PCs, so that the rest of the gameworld is represented ...

Yes, we've seen Red Robes and High Templars but that's not the top, by far. Advisor positions in the GMHs are pretty high up, but not the top. Apparently, even those ranks seem to create massive amounts of work staffside to be properly represent in the game world.
In my opinion, I don't think the higher-up positions are playable unless it's in a small, player-created clan. Imagine the amount of work necessary for the player and staff to make justice to a GMH Head, close-to-the-top noble of either citystate, a Black Robe, or Precentor.

Ironically, there are two clans where it's still possible to reach almost all the way to the top without screwing up the game world: The T'zai Byn and the Bards of the Poets' Circle. The latter even has detailed descriptions of what it takes to reach Master rank. I'm not sure what it says about it, but the number of PCs reaching that rank are extremely few if any at all. As for Byn Lieutenant, I know there's been a few through the years.

Anyway, this thread isn't about the glass ceiling. I'd love for more horizontal rewards in all organizations, brought into the game by both player initiative and staff assistance (which seems to be the point these days). It seems it will be easier for staff to measure what sort of help and opposition a PC can get, when it's about the lower ranks in the clans. That doesn't mean your ideas, plans and plots have to be minor in nature though. If it's easier for staff to determine, chances are you won't run into the homeless ninjas very often.

[Kryos]

Also, to reinforce a bit of the above tone, I see words like "sides" and "fight" being thrown about.  I really hope that's not how this thread is perceived.  I think everyone here likes/loves the game in their own way and are engaged in a discussion to try and better it.

[Nyr]

Nyr, I'll respond in a private contact about incident one, which was a few years ago now.

Your account is not 2 years old yet, so yes, let me know what the incident was--please put in a player request on it.  Thanks!

As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes.  If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?

We let them accomplish what they accomplish.  We don't prevent PCs from recruiting a horde (in the case of sponsored roles, they do have a cap on direct hirelings, but that's for game balance).  We don't prevent PCs from accumulating social/political power and wielding it.  We don't prevent PCs from accomplishing goals and changing the world.  Experience has taught us that past a certain point, there are diminishing returns in rank.  Higher ranks shouldn't be seen often.  In many cases, they affect so much that they may as well be staff members.  Due to the constraints on the PC and notedly volunteer staff, we do what we can to facilitate the needs of people without having them at those higher ranks.  We're excited to help people accomplish goals, though--just not so excited to be obligated (not feel, be--it's a definite obligation) to do things and react to things at the whim of a PC rather than to assist them.

If someone does enough to threaten a city

This is unrelated.  We won't store someone for being a badass sorcerer/defiler/whatever, or a bender of unspeakable power, or for being a Thrain Ironsword.

rise to the top of their order/house/whatever, its "good on them" not, "better make you an NPC" if you want the game to be truly player driven.

That's a hypothetical you nor I could prove or disprove.  Experience has taught us that your scenario--tried several times--does not work, not for staff, nor for the representation of the gameworld.  We have more to think about than the pleasure of the players that get leadership roles--we have the gameworld and the experience in mind.  We've made the decision--and not lightly--to look at other alternatives so that PCs aren't pigeonholed into roles that limit and restrict their own RP (and so that staff aren't stuck following behind that person with a dustpan and broom, ready to pick up the pieces). 

Go.  Do.  Be.  Discussing the finer points of staff policy and how this prevents you from going, doing, and being...this is cathartic.  However, understand that you (the collective you, those of you that take issue with any staff policy in regards to this or related issues) are pointing out problems you have with the extreme cases that are usually never achieved.

[Aaron Goulet]

Makes perfect sense to me.  Thanks, Nyr, for taking the time to elaborate; you've answered some of my unvoiced questions.

[Marshmellow]

As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes.  If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?

The staff prevents people from recruiting a hoard in the first place because having a large percentage of the playerbase all on one side without opposition is unrealistic because the primary opposition for players is other players.  For example, if Kadius has 20 PCs and Salarr has 1, Kurac has 1, and every tribe in the game has 1 each... who owns the wastes?  It's either restrict the character's hiring or provide NPC opposition and that's too much work on the staff's part.  The character has to work for it, not just have a hoard to do his/her bidding.  Anything is possible, still, though.

[Kryos]

Indeed, its good to read these responses.  A lot of what you've said Nyr is quite informative and refreshing. 

[Aaron Goulet]

As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes.  If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?

The staff prevents people from recruiting a hoard in the first place because having a large percentage of the playerbase all on one side without opposition is unrealistic because the primary opposition for players is other players.  For example, if Kadius has 20 PCs and Salarr has 1, Kurac has 1, and every tribe in the game has 1 each... who owns the wastes?  It's either restrict the character's hiring or provide NPC opposition and that's too much work on the staff's part.  The character has to work for it, not just have a hoard to do his/her bidding.  Anything is possible, still, though.

I saw this happen on another MUD, and it ruined said MUD for me.

[Scarecrow]

As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes.  If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?

The staff prevents people from recruiting a hoard in the first place because having a large percentage of the playerbase all on one side without opposition is unrealistic because the primary opposition for players is other players.  For example, if Kadius has 20 PCs and Salarr has 1, Kurac has 1, and every tribe in the game has 1 each... who owns the wastes?  It's either restrict the character's hiring or provide NPC opposition and that's too much work on the staff's part.  The character has to work for it, not just have a hoard to do his/her bidding.  Anything is possible, still, though.

Some clans will always be bigger than others, such as the T'zai Byn and The Arm of The Dragon, whilst others will remain smaller. However I doubt strongly you would ever have above scenario, because some of those 20 Kadians would be lured to other clans with tempting offers, and after a certain point, Kadius would stop hiring because you only need so many people to get the job done. Numbers of clans ebb and flow, I don't beleive at all everyone will converge into one super-clan and start dominating the game world. Characters are too diverse in personality, skill, ambition and intelligence to all lump together into one gellid mass.
The staff don't prevent people from recruiting a hoard, common sense does. There are lots of Bynners and Militia, because they have tonnes of work that can be spread out over a large body of people. Other Houses and Merchant Houses need less to accomplish their goals, and so only hire what they need.

[Marshmellow]

You'd be surprised, Scarecrow, what an even smaller imbalance can create.  There was a time when of the roughly six clans in one city (at the time), one of them had three times as much as any other, and it was silly how much they were able to accomplish by comparison to everyone else.  These sorts of imbalances do create vacuums in other clans by nature of how people connect to the game, which is essentially piece-meal.  What I mean by that is:  if there are three members of one clan, that they aren't going to see other clannies to be able to do much of anything with nearly as much as people in the clan with ten people.  This means that those people aren't training as much and they aren't able to do RPTs as often because there isn't as much overlap, not to mention that with fewer people that have trained less that they're less likely to survive harder sorts of missions that could be undertaken and thus are less likely to take awesome risks to accomplish awesome goals like the clan with three times the people, even though both houses (other things kept constant) should be able to accomplish much the same things.

[jriley]

You'd be surprised, Scarecrow, what an even smaller imbalance can create.  There was a time when of the roughly six clans in one city (at the time), one of them had three times as much as any other, and it was silly how much they were able to accomplish by comparison to everyone else.  These sorts of imbalances do create vacuums in other clans by nature of how people connect to the game, which is essentially piece-meal.  What I mean by that is:  if there are three members of one clan, that they aren't going to see other clannies to be able to do much of anything with nearly as much as people in the clan with ten people.  This means that those people aren't training as much and they aren't able to do RPTs as often because there isn't as much overlap, not to mention that with fewer people that have trained less that they're less likely to survive harder sorts of missions that could be undertaken and thus are less likely to take awesome risks to accomplish awesome goals like the clan with three times the people, even though both houses (other things kept constant) should be able to accomplish much the same things.

Disagree.

I think some clans will "flood" due to natural events. 

Sometimes one side has a huge advantage.  For example, in historic conflicts between the Turks and Armenians, there was no referee to step in and stop a war merely because the Turks had a bigger, better-equipped army*. 

This is life.  If the Kadians recruit twenty warriors and somebody else only has three, then you'd better join the Kadians as well or hide from them. 

As the ranks of the Kadians swell, they can afford to become more picky about who they choose.  Usually I think they will, installing a soft upper limit to how big a clan can grow.  Anyways, large organizations tend to fracture periodically. 

As someone mentioned above, other clans will need to provide fairly strong incentives for people to join.  But that's life.  You either join the big guys (favoring security) or join the smaller groups (favoring opportunity.)  I would hope that the staff wouldn't step in if they felt that one group were becoming too powerful.  That's sort of what Kyros was complaining about above, and to a strong degree the Nyr has suggested that the staff won't do this, at least not for independent clans.

*Please check my history.  My memory is fairly unreliable.

[Qzzrbl]

You'd be surprised, Scarecrow, what an even smaller imbalance can create.  There was a time when of the roughly six clans in one city (at the time), one of them had three times as much as any other, and it was silly how much they were able to accomplish by comparison to everyone else.  These sorts of imbalances do create vacuums in other clans by nature of how people connect to the game, which is essentially piece-meal.  What I mean by that is:  if there are three members of one clan, that they aren't going to see other clannies to be able to do much of anything with nearly as much as people in the clan with ten people.  This means that those people aren't training as much and they aren't able to do RPTs as often because there isn't as much overlap, not to mention that with fewer people that have trained less that they're less likely to survive harder sorts of missions that could be undertaken and thus are less likely to take awesome risks to accomplish awesome goals like the clan with three times the people, even though both houses (other things kept constant) should be able to accomplish much the same things.

Disagree.

I think some clans will "flood" due to natural events. 

Sometimes one side has a huge advantage.  For example, in historic conflicts between the Turks and Armenians, there was no referee to step in and stop a war merely because the Turks had a bigger, better-equipped army*. 

This is life.  If the Kadians recruit twenty warriors and somebody else only has three, then you'd better join the Kadians as well or hide from them. 

As the ranks of the Kadians swell, they can afford to become more picky about who they choose.  Usually I think they will, installing a soft upper limit to how big a clan can grow.  Anyways, large organizations tend to fracture periodically. 

As someone mentioned above, other clans will need to provide fairly strong incentives for people to join.  But that's life.  You either join the big guys (favoring security) or join the smaller groups (favoring opportunity.)  I would hope that the staff wouldn't step in if they felt that one group were becoming too powerful.  That's sort of what Kyros was complaining about above, and to a strong degree the Nyr has suggested that the staff won't do this, at least not for independent clans.

*Please check my history.  My memory is fairly unreliable.

It's not so much "which clan is bigger" as much as it is "which clan has more PCs".

Let's say we've got two coded clans of mercenaries-- the T'zai Byn, and the Green Assoles.

Historically, and according to the docs, the T'zai Byn is much larger. I can't think of the number the docs say, but just play along with me and let's say the Byn is supposed to have 2000 NPC and VNPC warriors, and the Green Assholes are supposed to be much smaller with about 100 NPC and VNPC warriors.

It wouldn't reflect the docs very well if the Green Assholes have 15 PCs, while the Byn only has 5.

Get what I mean? o:

[Talia]

We have clan caps for good reason, and that won't be changing. Game balance is an important consideration.

[Marshmellow]

Disagree.

I think some clans will "flood" due to natural events. 

Sometimes one side has a huge advantage.  For example, in historic conflicts between the Turks and Armenians, there was no referee to step in and stop a war merely because the Turks had a bigger, better-equipped army*. 

This is life.  If the Kadians recruit twenty warriors and somebody else only has three, then you'd better join the Kadians as well or hide from them. 

As the ranks of the Kadians swell, they can afford to become more picky about who they choose.  Usually I think they will, installing a soft upper limit to how big a clan can grow.  Anyways, large organizations tend to fracture periodically. 

As someone mentioned above, other clans will need to provide fairly strong incentives for people to join.  But that's life.  You either join the big guys (favoring security) or join the smaller groups (favoring opportunity.)  I would hope that the staff wouldn't step in if they felt that one group were becoming too powerful.  That's sort of what Kyros was complaining about above, and to a strong degree the Nyr has suggested that the staff won't do this, at least not for independent clans.

*Please check my history.  My memory is fairly unreliable.

It's not a matter of natural events causing the flooding of people towards a clan or not.  It's what happens when the clan floods.  It's also NOT fitting with the game world for us to determine the VNPC and/or NPC strength of a clan just based on how many PCs are in it.  Also, just because people can be picky doesn't mean they will be picky, especially when they're not paying all their hires' wages out of their own pocket.  People need to be reminded to be picky, and thus we have hire caps.  BE PICKY!  Don't hire people you don't need or that are dumbasses.  Be picky from the beginning!

[Scarecrow]

I beleive the relevent leaders of various Clans are picky, actually, to the extent that is needed for them. Each Clan has different needs to service, a blanket way of recruiting wouldn't work. The Byn have lots of people because they are a good, solid place for new warriors to start out, and because of how they travel so much, are also a good Clan for the new player to see more of the world in a safer manner. Veteran players stay on in the Byn for the various benefits, not least being accrued respect and skill.
The Arm of The Dragon has lots of  people yes, and I would imagine they have a high clan numbers cap. But keep in mind they are restricted to the city, with the occasional patrol in the wilds. They also tend to garner a fair few new players, as being in the Militia is a good way to more safely learn the ropes of Armageddon whilst also gathering general MUD gaming experience.
As for VNPC numbers and NPC numbers belonging to various clans, that's a tougher one if you're comparing those numbers being reflected in PC numbers. I think it may be too abstract to clearly quantify, and probably a little unneeded. Codedly there will always be some elements which don't make "sense" but that's just part of it being a game.
I still beleive though Armageddon has the best clan structure I've seen in a MUD.

[Marshmellow]

I think you have an incorrect assumption of what some clans do.  Would there have been a Copper War if the AoD and the Legion were both actually kept to the city?  People can get involved in things without having half the playerbase in their clan.  Clan caps prevent unrealistic imbalances just based on the number of players doing things.  It's that simple.

[Sam]

That is why the Byn is soo good. They act as a force multiplier.

[Scarecrow]

I think you have an incorrect assumption of what some clans do.  Would there have been a Copper War if the AoD and the Legion were both actually kept to the city?  People can get involved in things without having half the playerbase in their clan.  Clan caps prevent unrealistic imbalances just based on the number of players doing things.  It's that simple.

I unfortunately wasn't around for the Copper War, so I can only comment on what I've seen so far. But don't me wrong, I beleive the clans should have a cap. I'm just saying that the way Armageddon works, I don't think we'd ever be in danger of the killer katamari gellid clan of doom rolling across the world dominating all. Otherwise I agree.

[Marshmellow]

Well, in the past there've been a few instances that weren't quite 'katamari gellid clan of doom' but they were definitely examples of someone getting close to that, at least in proportion to their contemporaries, if you ask me.  This was back before much capping of clans' rosters was done.  Things weren't allowed to get out of hand, but there did seem a bit of imbalance from the point of view of at least a few players that weren't included in the fun for some reason or another.