Game Administration Discussion: The Homeless Ninja Syndrome

[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.