Let's dialogue about plots

[Talia]

To preface:

I was thinking about the change from the imm steered plots to the player steered plots. And I was wondering if it is working out. (I dunno. I am enjoying my little piece of the world. But it's always exciting to have lived in the time when...)

I played most actively a few years ago. And in my opinion there was a huge problem then with the heavy hand from above. There were times when I felt (perhaps mistakenly) that some imms thought we were all just Barbie Dolls in their Dream House. I hated that. I hated that they weren't facilitating the game, but rather putting on a puppet show. (That's a statement of opinion not fact.)

Looking from that to this, I think this is better.

But we've sacrificed a lot to get here.

Staffing is not static and we know that we don't have a perfect model.  As such we are always open to staff discussions about changes to the way things are done etc.  If you're asking if we're looking to make any changes right now, no we are not.

And perhaps I'm wrong to think so, but it makes it feel that at least to some extent that makes this process a collaboration of sorts.Hence my poorly received suggestion that player staff dialogue might be mutually beneficial.

And for reference, the policy being mentioned:

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

Another goal with the change is to move the focus of Storytellers from the administrative side of running clans, to the story oriented side. With a Highlord in charge of each group we hope that much of the admin work can be relieved and with dedicated HL's for each group decisions can get sign off at the team level.

The overall aim of this is to see STs out there animating every day, because they –want- to, to see plots and stories that reflect what players are interested in and want to achieve and staff supporting what you all are doing.

<snip>

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

Barz, you want dialogue, so let's talk. Like Adhira said, the policy is not going to be changed (and as both a staffer and a player, I personally do not want it changed), however we're still just 1.5 years into it, the playerbase has 15 years of experience with the old way of doing things, and I believe we're still all adjusting.

So I'd like to talk about how can we adjust. What things are working and what things are not working? I'd like to see constructive criticism of the system and suggestions for solutions, rather than the finger-pointing and whining that these things sometimes turn into. Also, I'm not really interested in how often any particular player sees or doesn't see animations, because while I think that's fun, it's not about plots. Here we are talking about plots: Thinking them up, driving them, involving other PCs in them, staff response to them.

Some observations I have made about the system from staff-side:

-- Players do get told "no" fairly frequently about plots they want to run. There can be a lot of reasons for this: Game or clan or player balance, lack of Zalanthan technology to do such a thing, doesn't make IC sense, etc. Thus far I have not seen any "no"s given where I didn't think it was very solid--and there is a lot of dialogue staff-side about these things, from all quarters. That is, if you're told no, there's a very good reason behind it.

-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

-- Frequent player reporting helps plots move along. Staff assumes that if you're not telling us what you're doing toward a plotline, then you don't care about it. So if you do care about it, please tell us about it. We're not going to just step in and take over; if player interest fizzles, the plot fizzles. I suggest weekly reports that detail your plot progress.

-- Running your plot ideas OOCly past your clan staff before you ever do anything toward them in game is very helpful. Sometimes there are OOC reasons why a plot cannot proceed, and you will be told that up front before wasting your efforts. If there aren't OOC reasons, we'll say that, and then you can proceed to try it out.

-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

-- Everyone always wants war. But, war is very time-intensive for staff (buildup, battles, and then aftermath) and it also leads to a lot of player complaints of unfairness if it's between PC groups. Might I suggest that players look into cold war, instead of hot war? Envision what a Zalanthan cold war and covert actions against individuals and organizations might look like. I can't/won't guarantee this can happen either, but I think it's more viable.

-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

So those are some observations and suggestions I have. Your thoughts?

[lepxii]

  As a relic from a bygone arm era - I would love to see more action outside of the established imm-run clans, and a higher focus on adventure than on political (i.e. less sponsored noble / GMH family roles). More of the 'man against the established highly oppressing order'.

[Talia]

As a relic from a bygone arm era - I would love to see more action outside of the established imm-run clans, and a higher focus on adventure than on political (i.e. less sponsored noble / GMH family roles). More of the 'man against the established highly oppressing order'.

Sounds fun. What are your plans to make that happen?

(See what I did there?)

[Lizzie]

Well if it was me running that unclanned thing, I'd make sure I have someone with the wagonmaking skill, and build a - oh wait. Not implemented, no wagon objects allowed to independents..

Okay then instead I'd slowly build my empire, and then kidnap and enslave the..erm - no, that's not allowed anymore.. hm.

Oh I know! I'll amass tens of thousands of sids and open a new merchant shop in uh - oh wait the Governor of that area is a PC who hasn't logged in for the past 3 RL months..damn..

I could always hire the Byn to - arrgh the shield wall, again? Really?

Maybe my elf could buy a skimmer and - shit.

I'll have my character learn *x* language and and form an alliance with - yeah, no.

I could hire a magicker to *y*..oh they can't do that anymore can they. Gosh.

Gee.

I guess all the ideas I have, are no longer possible, as they once were.

[Cutthroat]

If players are driving the car that is the game's plots (hence "player-driven"), then staff can be likened to the people that build highways. The road and exits represent reasonable options for plots and the guardrails keep you from going off-road into doing things that don't make sense for the game-world or benefit the players.

I think what Talia says makes a lot of sense. Let's face it: players can't do everything alone. We can't build taverns or lead rebellions against a city-state on a whim because these things take a lot of effort and support to pull off. Even groups of players can't do these kinds of things unless they are all prepared. But once they are all prepared, it's a matter of getting staff to load a new building into the game, or rioting NPCs in areas, etc. Sometimes even that won't work if what you want to do is simply impossible, but I think a lot of players forget, for better or worse, that player-driven =/= player-led. We come up with the ideas, and we do all the footwork IG to pull stuff off - and then, staff use their own tools to make the game world reflect the actions of the players.

Complaints crop up from time to time about the new player-driven staff policy and how people just aren't seeing the effects of it. This seems to me like a bad start in a group project in school or at work. A bunch of people are grouped together and given some tasks to do, but no one within the group wants to take the lead and get to work.

Think about how that situation applies to Armageddon. Right now, if you can't see things IG that need doing, you may need to try harder in your searching, or search in other parts of the game. If absolutely no players are doing anything plot-like around you... I know this is a cliche around here, but be the change. Apply for sponsored roles or submit normal apps that would be able to do or help with the things you want to see being done or helped with, or find a way that your current character can get involved.

The one and only thing that I would like to see, are the players saying "I would like to see <plot idea>" changing their tune to "I would like to do <plot idea>". There are a lot of capable players here that can be up to this task.

[X-D]

First, I have to say that over all I like the way things currently are.

Though I do wish the animation of clan leaders/elders was put back in. I don't like doing everything in email/request tool, at least when they would be more fun or interesting handled IG. Even if it is simply asking some questions.

I've had no problems starting plots, finding plots, meddling in plots. And the nice thing is, you can be pretty sure it is player driven and so what you do might actually have an affect.

-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I try to do this, but man, you guys tend to be really vague on the answers. Know that when a player asks staff when they can be on for something, we really want the staffer(s) to say, I can do this at this time or this time. Then the players will work around that. It is easier for us to do then getting the "I might be able to be around when your having the RPT" or even worse, "You guys figure it out and let me know then I'll let you know if I can be there."

-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

Not everything needed is exciting...but hey, building things is one of the best ways to make lasting impressions on the game world, so fun in another way, and exciting five PCs and six years later.

-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

I know this is true, but I don't really agree it should be. Sure, if I run a plot that involves three clans I am involving a larger number of staff so there is more over all staff interest. But if it is just in clan the in clan staff interest should be just as good.

-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

For me, If the plot does not require staff intervention to complete, if your not paying attention, you are going to find out after the fact. Keep in mind, the key words there are "does not require" clan changes would require, building things, pretty much any large scale stuff would also require. But if I start a plot to kill off Agent Amos of Kurac, I'm going to keep it totally IG, you want to find out about it and you will have to animate somebody and find out IG.

-- Players do get told "no" fairly frequently about plots they want to run. There can be a lot of reasons for this: Game or clan or player balance, lack of Zalanthan technology to do such a thing, doesn't make IC sense, etc. Thus far I have not seen any "no"s given where I didn't think it was very solid--and there is a lot of dialogue staff-side about these things, from all quarters. That is, if you're told no, there's a very good reason behind it.

For the record, I have never been told no, but yes, it is a good idea to run any idea you have on any plot that could possibly be game world changing past staff. Though I've never been told no, I have been offered other ideas, usually they make sense and make progress smoother on my end.

And game world changing does not mean stuff like blowing up allanak. Well, it does, but not only that. Anything from wanting to drill a peephole in lady templar fancy pants dressing room door to things that would simply cause a doc change or new npcs, old npcs being removed etc etc.

Anyway, aside from the afore mentioned desire to have some things handled ICly more often by animated npc leaders etc. I have been satisfied with current policy.

[Kiara]

Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

I agree that players shouldn't make all the decisions, but if it's a player-driven plot, I think their input should be seriously taken into account.

Frequent player reporting helps plots move along. Staff assumes that if you're not telling us what you're doing toward a plotline, then you don't care about it. So if you do care about it, please tell us about it. We're not going to just step in and take over; if player interest fizzles, the plot fizzles. I suggest weekly reports that detail your plot progress.

I agree with your first point. I disagree with your second. Why can't you as staff infuse a plot with a little spice if it begins to unravel. You're here not just to be facilitators, but also guides that help steer things along if something bad happens. Doing nothing contributes just that: nothing to the dynamic of the world. If things are allowed to fall apart, the world becomes static. Boring.

Running your plot ideas OOCly past your clan staff before you ever do anything toward them in game is very helpful. Sometimes there are OOC reasons why a plot cannot proceed, and you will be told that up front before wasting your efforts. If there aren't OOC reasons, we'll say that, and then you can proceed to try it out.

I agree with your first point. I'm drawing a blank on what ooc reasons could possible cause staff to railroad a players plot. Can you give examples? Thanks.

When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

Why should this be a prerequisite? Isn't it enough justification to move a plot forward if your own underlings are trying to begin a story? Why do we need multiple people involved? It's only natural for players to gravitate towards plots, if you as staff only give the creator a chance to begin something. IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.  

Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

Why are building plots boring? You claim you want conflict in the above citation, only to contrast that with the statement that (and I'm paraphrasing) "players always want wars". Which is it? If the players are interesting in building something, isn't that all that matters? Isn't that enough?

Everyone always wants war. But, war is very time-intensive for staff (buildup, battles, and then aftermath) and it also leads to a lot of player complaints of unfairness if it's between PC groups. Might I suggest that players look into cold war, instead of hot war? Envision what a Zalanthan cold war and covert actions against individuals and organizations might look like. I can't/won't guarantee this can happen either, but I think it's more viable.

Bring back Blackmoon, and create two guerilla factions of Northern/Southern sympathizers headquartered in their opposing city-state. Problem solved.

Currently, players cannot do such on their own, as the support of creating such things is non-existant. That is to say, it's not supported. You as staff, however, have the ability to do such.

Give me a coded raiding clan, a bow and a quiver of arrows. I'll bring you conflict.

If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I agree.

So those are some observations and suggestions I have. Your thoughts?

I'll share a few.

1) Support a plot, even if you don't like it. Why? Because the players might like it. It might interest them. Hell, they may even surprise you. Don't be so fast to pull the plug.

2) When giving criticism, give constructive criticism as well. Telling a player "no, that won't work" doesn't solve anything. Instead, hint around that there might be another way, and let the players solve the riddle. If they can't, give them a hint. If you already do this, super.

3) Interaction with npcs depends upon your staffer. Some staff do not animate npcs often. Some do. It's a bit artificial, however, for it to be your policy to animate the smaller npcs, only to have half (maybe) of your staff do so.

4) I'm overall marginally pleased with the current level of interaction. In my current clan, I'm very pleased. In my previous one, not so much. It's relative to my third contention.

[Malken]

I think Staff should go back to driving the car. The playerbase should never be trusted with anything more than a permanent learner's license because we tend to.. EEPS! *crash*

[X-D]

I had to reply to this.

Give me a coded raiding clan, a bow and a quiver of arrows. I'll bring you conflict.

Red Fangs

[Barzalene]

Thank you for this thread. It's awesome to have a forum beyond the yearly meetings to have important discussions.

I have several thoughts and maybe a few will even be productive. I'll type them up as soon as I get home. (My stupid employer just doesn't get the importance of the GDB.)

[Cutthroat]

I think Staff should go back to driving the car. The playerbase should never be trusted with anything more than a permanent learner's license because we tend to.. EEPS! *crash*

Perhaps the car in my crappy analogy needs some body-work, but by and large I think it's not totaled.

[Kiara]

I had to reply to this.

Give me a coded raiding clan, a bow and a quiver of arrows. I'll bring you conflict.

Red Fangs

As if we weren't already aware of this.

The Blackmoon employs humans, muls, dwarves, half-giants, half-elves and elves.

Which more heavily involves the player-base?

Which clan/tribe is more distanced from the player-base?

[Talia]

The Red Fangs have as much potential to involve and affect the playerbase as any raiding clan would. If you're not seeing it, that just means you're not seeing it, not that it's not happening.

Other stuff I will reply to in a little while.

[Kiara]

The Red Fangs have as much potential to involve and affect the playerbase as any raiding clan would. If you're not seeing it, that just means you're not seeing it, not that it's not happening.

The Red Fangs are limited. Limited in that only a desert elf can be a Red Fang. Minus slaves/cohorts (I added that for you my sweet X-D)

I never said I wasn't seeing change. I contention is that the Red Fangs limit opportunities for players to *ahem* raid. You can only have support as a raider if you're a desert elf. Blackmoon is the opposite side of that coin.

If you bring back Blackmoon, you can potentially involve many, many more players.

[Nyr]

Well if it was me running that unclanned thing, I'd make sure I have someone with the wagonmaking skill, and build a - oh wait. Not implemented, no wagon objects allowed to independents..

We don't reveal stuff we're working on for the most part.  We reveal stuff we have completed.  Fair point, it's not possible to build your own wagon...yet.

Okay then instead I'd slowly build my empire, and then kidnap and enslave the..erm - no, that's not allowed anymore.. hm.

It's totally allowed, go do it.

Oh I know! I'll amass tens of thousands of sids and open a new merchant shop in uh - oh wait the Governor of that area is a PC who hasn't logged in for the past 3 RL months..damn..

Invalid argument.

I could always hire the Byn to - arrgh the shield wall, again? Really?

Incomplete argument?

Maybe my elf could buy a skimmer and - shit.

Valid argument, though not in relation to your conclusion that implies this was once possible.

I'll have my character learn *x* language and and form an alliance with - yeah, no.

Huh?

I could hire a magicker to *y*..oh they can't do that anymore can they. Gosh.

Why not?

Gee.

I guess all the ideas I have, are no longer possible, as they once were.

I'd encourage you to drive over the speedbumps rather than view them as brick walls.

[Talia]

-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I try to do this, but man, you guys tend to be really vague on the answers. Know that when a player asks staff when they can be on for something, we really want the staffer(s) to say, I can do this at this time or this time. Then the players will work around that. It is easier for us to do then getting the "I might be able to be around when your having the RPT" or even worse, "You guys figure it out and let me know then I'll let you know if I can be there."

I'm not fond of vagueness myself, but sometimes it's hard for staffers to be less than vague because we all have lives, too. Personally, if you were to ask me about a specific date and time, I will usually give you a firm answer one way or another. But do I think there is room for improvement with the firm answers? Probably. I can't promise this from other staffers, though.

-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

Not everything needed is exciting...but hey, building things is one of the best ways to make lasting impressions on the game world, so fun in another way, and exciting five PCs and six years later.

I don't mean to say that building plots should not be pursued. They are their own kind of low-key fun, and they can involve quests for a number of PCs, meetings, RPTs, all that stuff. I just personally do not want to see them being the only kinds of plots that are pursued. That's what I mean by they are "OK." They're good, but they shouldn't be our whole plot diet. I'd encourage leaders (by which I mean players pursuing plots) to try to put together an adventuring-focused plot for each building-focused plot they undertake, to balance it out; and I'd also encourage players to look for ways to insert more conflict into building-focused plots.

-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

I know this is true, but I don't really agree it should be. Sure, if I run a plot that involves three clans I am involving a larger number of staff so there is more over all staff interest. But if it is just in clan the in clan staff interest should be just as good.

Mostly this is for practical reasons. If just you want to run a plot for just your clan, you will probably have the eyes, hands, time, ideas of just one to three staffers involved. If you expand that to include another clan (especially one outside your own clan group), then you will get another one to three staffers involved. And so on. More staffers are better because we have different schedules, different capabilities, and different areas of interest. Some of us really like to build, some love to animate, some can write or modify scripts, etc. E.g.: If you're trying to run the thing just for your clan and I'm your staffer, but your whole clan is on GMT time...well, you're not going to have much of me for real-time support, because I'm not on GMT.

Another reason is that you're more likely to get necessary Admin or Producer support for your plot if it's bigger and involves more players. Admins and Producers are responsible for looking at the overall staff workload, balancing it, and ultimately saying yes or no to stuff that Storytellers propose. They want bang for their buck on staff time.

-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

For me, If the plot does not require staff intervention to complete, if your not paying attention, you are going to find out after the fact. Keep in mind, the key words there are "does not require" clan changes would require, building things, pretty much any large scale stuff would also require. But if I start a plot to kill off Agent Amos of Kurac, I'm going to keep it totally IG, you want to find out about it and you will have to animate somebody and find out IG.

You're right, there are plot things for which staff aren't required to give you permission. We do appreciate it when you give us and any other relevant clans a heads-up if you're going to do something negative to another PC or clan; not so we can stop you, just because we want to know and not get surprised, because there is often fallout or some kind of response needed. But if you want to change the clan structure, or build a temple to Muk, or whatever--right, you're going to need permission of some kind to do that.

And game world changing does not mean stuff like blowing up allanak. Well, it does, but not only that. Anything from wanting to drill a peephole in lady templar fancy pants dressing room door to things that would simply cause a doc change or new npcs, old npcs being removed etc etc.

I really agree with this. Not everything has to be huge. Sometimes some things will be, but not mostly.

[Lizzie]

Wagons: Right. Valid point. And since we're not told when we can, there's no point in even making the attempt, or considering including it in a plotline.
Kidnapping and enslaving a templar or noble or anyone else for that matter - not an option. Mandatory auto-store per recent policy. I don't know why you think it's totally allowed.
Elves on skimmers - it was allowed. Or rather, there was never a policy stating that it wasn't allowed, and there have been elves who have purchased and used skimmers, until that policy was specified.
X Language - certain languages can no longer be learned in certain ways, and others can no longer be learned at all.
Magickers doing "y" - certain spells that used to be able to do certain things, can no longer do those things.

Things that USED to be possible, which people USED to use as plot devices, are no longer possible, OR no longer allowed. Many of those vehicles for plot devices are popular, and fun, and interesting, and brought up tons of conflict that involved lots of people. They are no longer an option.

[palomar]

Okay then instead I'd slowly build my empire, and then kidnap and enslave the..erm - no, that's not allowed anymore.. hm.

Kidnapping is okey I guess, codedly or using whatever authority to make someone a socially recognized slave is not.

Oh I know! I'll amass tens of thousands of sids and open a new merchant shop in uh - oh wait the Governor of that area is a PC who hasn't logged in for the past 3 RL months..damn..

In my experience, that Tuluki door isn't closed. You'd probably need an organization of some sort to back you up. PC availability isn't the main obstacle.

I could always hire the Byn to - arrgh the shield wall, again? Really?

Jumping off the Shield wall is tradition, but hiring people, including the Byn, to do dirty work sure is a viable route to get some stuff done.

I'll have my character learn *x* language and and form an alliance with - yeah, no.

Forming alliances would depend on a lot of different factors. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not.

I could hire a magicker to *y*..oh they can't do that anymore can they. Gosh.

Hiring and using/utilizing isn't the same thing.

Me, I kind of like player-driven. I don't miss huge staff-driven plots, though I sometimes think it would be nice with more smaller staff initiated plots created to reflect clan attitude and interests. In my experience, such things add a welcome spice to the game world, even in cases where they are minor and short-term.

One thing in favor of player driven plots is that it's easier to understand why they don't progress (when a PC is unable to pursue the plot appropriately, perhaps by dying). I've always been frustrated when staff initiated plots fade away, and you just can't figure out why, from the IC perspective.

[X-D]

We do appreciate it when you give us and any other relevant clans a heads-up if you're going to do something negative to another PC or clan; not so we can stop you, just because we want to know and not get surprised, because there is often fallout or some kind of response needed.

Staff are people too...and OOC info is OOC info no matter if your on staff or not, and you guys already have many tools to garner that.

I've found that on matters that do not require staff assistance before hand, better and more realistic responses are if it is at least somewhat a surprise to them.

Anecdotal bit here.
Some 8 or 9 years ago I had a PC with plans against a medium ranked PC member of a clan. I informed staff of that intention. About 12 hours later that PC got staff transfered to a new area and started having 3 guards instead of 1.
When my PC started to try and take the action, npcs came out of the woodwork before anything was done.

Now, was that staff cheating? I don't have proof on the matter, but you know what I suspect.

Later, on a new PC, he and a certain Mul slave decided to run off together, Staff was informed by wish AS it was happening, the response was far more realistic...and fun.

[KankWhisperer]

What always turned me off of trying to develop plots is there is limited staff manpower to do plots so unless the staff likes you, your plot will probably be ignored/denied. Even if your plot is great and will involve everyone and everyone will enjoy it, staff has to "like you" or as they call it "trust you" for anything to happen.

So I usually try and NEVER make my plot(s) require staff intervention. So its limited, but you can still have a good amount of fun at least, just not change the world.

[Nyr]

Wagons: Right. Valid point. And since we're not told when we can, there's no point in even making the attempt, or considering including it in a plotline.

So:  until there are craftable wagons or whatever, steal one from someone else, or expand your horizon beyond "I need a wagon to do X."

Kidnapping and enslaving a templar or noble or anyone else for that matter - not an option. Mandatory auto-store per recent policy. I don't know why you think it's totally
allowed.

Do you honestly believe that if your PC had:

the means (takes resources/skill)
a plan (takes forethought and skill)
the balls (most people wouldn't even try this)

to kidnap a noble or templar, that staff would not allow it?  Enslaving is enslaving, only templars can enslave someone, so that sorta tosses that out the window too--but for grins, let's say you're a non-templar, non-noble, indie that manages to kidnap a templar or noble and wants to enslave them (for whatever dire purpose).  

Elves on skimmers - it was allowed. Or rather, there was never a policy stating that it wasn't allowed, and there have been elves who have purchased and used skimmers, until that policy was specified.

As best I can tell by perusing staff-side IDB conversations, skimmers didn't exist to buy at a merchant until recently, at which point people asked about elves, at which point staff discussed it and said "no."  No one asked before that, so sure, I imagine elves could have been on silt skimmers before if they were provided by staff.  Valid, though, in that there never was a policy on it in particular, yes.

X Language - certain languages can no longer be learned in certain ways, and others can no longer be learned at all.

I still don't see the problem, I'm sorry.  Is this a reference to bugfixes?  A reference to certain races or tribes that don't exist in a playable fashion (dead, closed clans, whatever)?  You can try to learn the mantis language and ally with them, I think they'd like to put you in the position of Head Lunchlady.   You can try to learn the Anyali language and ally with them, but since they're a closed clan, you'd be setting this up with staff just for the benefit of your PC.  If it is on the behalf of a larger clan or group, then it can't hurt to ask and at least put forth the effort for it.  

Magickers doing "y" - certain spells that used to be able to do certain things, can no longer do those things.

I also don't see the problem here either, I'm sorry.  Is this a reference to bugfixes?  I'm honestly curious about this one as I don't have a clue about it, so feel free to put in a request to elaborate if it is too sensitive for the GDB.

Things that USED to be possible, which people USED to use as plot devices, are no longer possible, OR no longer allowed. Many of those vehicles for plot devices are popular, and fun, and interesting, and brought up tons of conflict that involved lots of people. They are no longer an option.

I won't deny that.  Feel free to continue on any other dialogue, too--I just took issue with the specific examples you presented, as they didn't really seem to be roadblocks towards player plots.

[Nyr]

unless the staff likes you, your plot will probably be ignored/denied.

I'm a staffer (so take it with a grain of salt) but I disagree with this particular statement.  

edit to add:  unless you treat your staff badly, in which case you'll get notes on that, and yes--we don't like that.  We volunteer to do the job, and we do not volunteer to put up with written abuse.

[Twilight]

I try to do this, but man, you guys tend to be really vague on the answers.

In a different context, staff seem to in general be very concise in your responses.  I can understand why, in general.  However, I am not looking for messages that look like they come from corporate management (concise to the point of loosing any meaning).  Especially in an era with limited senior NPC animation, I'm not only looking for a yes/no.  I am looking for context, understanding of the various NPC reactions, emotions, etc.  In short, if there are limited IG interactions with senior NPCs, the reports for characters via request tool should stop looking so much like reports of activity and more like more in depth communication.  Perhaps I simply don't structure mine right, but until very recently this is what I experienced.  Getting a one or two line reply to paragraphs of information is not generally going to give me what I am looking for.

As for player driven vs staff driven, I like the idea of the player driven.  What I miss is the special circumstances a staff driven plot can have.  Bringing to life places, NPCs, Objects, abilities, etc. that aren't viable for players to experience normally, perhaps unknown to players, and thus somewhat hard to include in a player driven plot.  As long as staff make sure to sprinkle special situations, objects, granted abilities etc. into player driven plots, as part of something the player came up with or in addition to it, I would be satisfied.  I'd love to give examples to clarify, but can't, obviously.

[KankWhisperer]

unless the staff likes you, your plot will probably be ignored/denied.

I'm a staffer (so take it with a grain of salt) but I disagree with this particular statement. 

Well its only anecdotal evidence on my part as I have no idea what/why/how staff does many things, But I have played the game for ten years. Over time you tend to notice how some sets of players tend to get their shit approved while others don't and the plot(s) seem fairly similar and comparable at least from the outside.

[Talia]

In a different context, staff seem to in general be very concise in your responses.  I can understand why, in general.  However, I am not looking for messages that look like they come from corporate management (concise to the point of loosing any meaning).  Especially in an era with limited senior NPC animation, I'm not only looking for a yes/no.  I am looking for context, understanding of the various NPC reactions, emotions, etc.  In short, if there are limited IG interactions with senior NPCs, the reports for characters via request tool should stop looking so much like reports of activity and more like more in depth communication.  Perhaps I simply don't structure mine right, but until very recently this is what I experienced.  Getting a one or two line reply to paragraphs of information is not generally going to give me what I am looking for.

If you want something specific, I would suggest you specifically ask for it. For example, if you want to know how Joe Negean feels about your idea, ask in your request "How does Joe Negean himself feel about my idea?" We aren't mindworms and don't know that's what you want unless you tell us it's what you want. Being as clear as possible with us helps us give you what you want.

Also, if you don't get what you seek in a response, you can email back (even after the request is closed) and say, "Can you give me more detail about blah?" Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't.

As for player driven vs staff driven, I like the idea of the player driven.  What I miss is the special circumstances a staff driven plot can have.  Bringing to life places, NPCs, Objects, abilities, etc. that aren't viable for players to experience normally, perhaps unknown to players, and thus somewhat hard to include in a player driven plot.  As long as staff make sure to sprinkle special situations, objects, granted abilities etc. into player driven plots, as part of something the player came up with or in addition to it, I would be satisfied.  I'd love to give examples to clarify, but can't, obviously.

We will definitely bring those things in if there is room in the plot, it makes IC sense, and there's not some OOC reason for not doing so. Staff are very creative and very enthusiastic about putting interesting things into plots for you. I'd love to give examples too, but can't, obviously But I assure you, we will do this when we can.