Let's dialogue about plots

[Talia]

As to the point on conflict, I think a reasonable compromise between "starting a new clan/clans" (which requires a lot of staff work) and the laissez-faire "let players do it themselves" (which can be daunting or impossible as Goulet said) is sponsoring roles for the sole purpose of causing conflicts (that is not to say the current sponsored roles usually offered don't cause conflicts - they can, and should). Staff could choose players that have demonstrably handled certain types of conflicts well and set them up as raiders, dissenters against certain cities, deserters of certain clans, "terrorists", and worse. In this way, staff leave the conflicts to players, their sole role being dropping the conflict-starters into the game. In essence they are starting plots in this way, but the framework they will come up with will be very bare-bones. They could post on Staff Announcements asking for a few raiders, without being more specific, and give players the task of using their background to describe the PC's stomping grounds, methods, etc. It is up to the players on both sides of the conflict to decide how to proceed.

I like the intent of your idea, but I'm going to counteroffer to your suggestion: As a part of the indies/tribals team, that means I help handle Unclanned staff. Most of your "conflict starter" ideas would fall into the Unclanned area. If a player is interested in playing this type of role, I would encourage him/her to send in a request to Unclanned staff to discuss realistic IC vectors for conflict and how they can go about achieving those conflicts 100% in game, 100% player-driven. No one needs to wait around for staff permission or support to start conflict, but if you want to do it long-term or large-scale, you will probably want to be in communication with the staff about that. That is to say: I'm not going to give you a private lair or boost your skills, but I will do my best to guide you just like any of my clan members. (Because you are, if you're Unclanned.)

[Dakota]

re: all the talk about Red Fangs.

I think it would make sense if their was an open faction of outlaw raiders / group trying to overthrow a city-state. When I started I was under the impression from the helpfiles (and Rebel Class) that this was around. I guess it's not but having a group with a -specific- goal in mind

i.e.

1: Overthrow the standing government of Tuluk

1a: Raid / Attack anyone from His Ivory in the surrounding lands

1b: Try to start a war between Allanak and Tuluk (make sure you have an out with Allanak)

Very simple and player-driven.

Red Fangs (love em) are great but they seem to blow with the wind where their alliances / aims fall. Which is great. But its not what was referenced earlier.

n00b story about Plots:

I told someone who plays Arm not long ago:

"Gee, I've been playing Arm for 4 months now. Great fun. I think I'll spec app for a gicker and try to make him like some sort of zealous prophet. Give sermons outside of Tuluk. Have a simple belief system but the whole purpose would be to insight a war and have it really be player-driven. Add some excitement that everyone could take part in rather than sit in a tavern and see who can emote ennui the best"

Someone, a 10 year veteren of arm, said: "The staff, even if you got approved, would kill you for it. Wouldn't last at all. They may say it's interesting and let you go but you would die very fast b/c that stuff doesn't work here"

This was very discouraging. And I'm even hesitant to bring it up as I -really- enjoy arm and like sending in character reports to keep the staff updated on things but after hearing about that and reading how: "Oh, a few years ago I was going to kill an X-Noble, then I told the staff and the X-Noble suddenly knew about it or wasn't vulnerable anymore"

Granted these may just be jaded players and I hope thats the case.

Regardless it -has- planted a seed of caution when I think about plots I would like to make to try to involve other players. Even on an RPT basis.

But I still send in my reports and try to give it a fresh try.

[wizturbo]

I think a big problem with player-driven is that it limits plot involvement to a relatively few number of characters, since a lot of characters die before they get to the point of "okay, now lets start this plot."

And while player driven plots can involve those less-ancient characters, it essentially is relying on the older characters to start them (who may not be inclined to do so for whatever IC reasons.)

I agree with this sentiment.  Starting plots generally requires old, skilled PC's to fire up.  At least any plot above some amateur hour stunt.  This is because older PC's have the coded skill to pull off some things new PC's would never be able to even dream of, and also because they have hundreds of hours worth of PC contacts and friends to draw upon to make things happen.  By that time in a PC's life, they have baggage of some kind.  Friends, family, an entire clan relying on them...etc.  Unless there's a very compelling reason, there is not much driving these PC's to start big awesome plotlines.  In the past when I played Armageddon and staff drove the plots, they added that "very compelling reason" to act into the equation.  

For instance, I played a clanned secret magicker years ago.  Things were getting dull, it was clear the staff wanted a certain thing to happen within the clan, so they put a steel dagger to his throat (literally) and said welcome to our special operations branch.  Would my PC have had any IC reason to go that direction?  Nope, no way.  Did I love that it happened, of course I did!   I didn't get a ton of direction after my induction into the more special operations side of things, but it was clear my role was supposed to change, so I did more risky/adventurous/plot developing things.  In short, a small amount of imm "nudging" or outright shoving can go a very long way in making PC driven plots.

[flurry]

In a player-driven atmosphere, I think some consideration has to be given to how staff should influence (or not) the shape a plot is taking. I had a discouraging experience, a few months after the policy change, when my sponsored character had been putting work into a plot over an extended period of time. She was the one guiding the efforts and running things, as far as that plot went. It was not intentional, but basically a clan staff decision (bringing in a brand new sponsored role to speed things along) ended up vastly diminishing, really all but eliminating, my character's role in the ongoing plot. I'm not upset about it anymore, and I know the clan staff (who overall I enjoyed working with) didn't foresee the results of their decision. But it still felt like this form of staff influence over the plot was the thing that soured that particular experience for me.

[Little_Cacophony]

Before the Policy Change:

Writing clan reports are often short, nothing really goes pass one page. If staff is interested in knowing more, I get a fun NPC interaction. Sure, plots are imm driven, but know what? No paper work. I can just get on the ride and do stuffs. No pressure at all. If there is something I can't do in one clan, I'll go find a clan and imm who will not mind giving me a hand.

After the Policy Change:

I guess I can do whatever I wanted, except the things staffs say are not very constructive for the player base, and but then I get suggestions in other directions. If I want to do anything, include it in a report. If I meet anyone, include it in a report. If I want to start a conflict with another clan, include it in a report. If I even THINK of pk, include it in a report, and CC to the other clans. If I THINK of anything at all, include it a report.

On plots. This is where I really begin to appreciate staffs' workload. Have you any idea how much paperwork is involved? Just a vague example:

Month 1 - Super exciting Plot started! Spanning multi-clans! Fun! Joy! Adventure! Report in, approved, ready to go.

Month 2 - Old people die/stored/whatever. New people came in. Report writing, modified plans. Plot will go on.

Month 3 - Getting somewhere! More reports on progress. Coordination hell. But Plot is breathing and crawling.

Month 4 - You know what? I don't even want to hear I was ever involved in this Plot, and don't you ever dare try to nudge me towards the Plot. I don't care you are a PC/staff/Tek himself. Stab Plot repeatedly until it stops moving.

Month 5 - Consider the idea of storage so that I can get away from the rotting body of the Plot.

Some days, I seriously contemplate not logging on for a week just so I can skip the report writing for that week. I feel less inclined to want to do plots, pks, conflicts, or adventures just so I can get out of writing that Character Report.

Is it just my imagination, or the rate of sponsored PC storage has gone up?

This player driven policy has given me a new perspective on matters, and a renewed appreciation for the work staff do. I don't mind getting 9 Nos for every 10 ideas I ask about, if it means I will end up with less report writing. I want everyone to enjoy the game and have fun, but I don't want to feel responsible for others' fun.

I feel we have gone completely from a command economy to a free market. Perhaps a little bit more of a balance would be great.

[Old Kank]

Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

...

I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Shabago, I don't think I ever played in any of your clans while you were on staff, but now I wish I had.  You just became my favorite ex-staffer!

I dislike the new policy, and would like to see more staff-driven stuff.  This has nothing at all to do with a lack of ambition on my, or the playerbase's part, so please, please, please don't feed me the "be the change you want to see" line.  The staff have both the tools and the long-range vision for the game needed to drive some of these things that, by design, the players lack.  Given that, why should players be expected to be able to step up and fill the void the staff left?

The new policy hasn't done anything helpful to the playerbase that I've seen, though it's completely possible I've missed it.  (I hope it has been hugely beneficial on the staff side, but I can't speak to that.)  Before, you had staff-driven plots, and player-driven plots, and player-driven plots spun off of staff-driven plots.  Now we just have player-driven plots.  It's as if the staff closed Allanak for play in order to focus on Tuluk, which would be okay if Tuluk became an awesome place to play, but it still feels like same-old-Tuluk.

At the same time, there has been a trend toward tying the hands of the playerbase, which is the opposite of what should be happening.  People like to point back 5, 10, 15 years ago, to some influential PC and say, "Look!  Look!  See what's possible?" without accounting for the climate of the time.  I'm not trying to diminish those players' accomplishments, but the fact is that things were much looser back then than they are now.  It's not impossible to create an influential PC today, but I do think the bar has been set a lot higher -- and that's a double-edged sword.  PC's behave more realistically, and players are more responsible, but you're less likely to find people willing to step outside the rank and file, or overpowered PCs (in terms of time:skill) that are willing to do crazy stuff just for shits and giggles which, like it or not, generate interest.

If the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

-Let players recruit OOC, both for family members as well as general clan members.  Yes, it's kind of stupid and there's potential for abuse, but shit gets done when you work with people you can trust and rely on.

-Grant clanned PCs much more autonomy and authority to run their own clans.

-Let the indies get away with stupid stuff.  If Amos and Malik can spamcraft their way to millions of 'sid, let them build a wagon without going through 10 RL-months worth of hoops.

-Make the noble houses more appealing.  Pay noble clan members much, much more, and give them discounts on items, and make the law a little flexible in their favor.

-Bump the clan caps up a notch.  If House Kadius becomes a massive blob that consumes all PCs before it... so be it.  They must be doing something right in order to attract that many players.

-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

-Randomly put interesting items into the game, in the hands of low-level people, if possible.  It doesn't have to be the Cursed Sword of Steinal or anything.  A horse, a pet quirri, or an ancient but useless artifact will all work nicely to spur interest and intrigue.

-Slightly off-topic, but put an end to the food/water shortage in Allanak.  A single meal has been the price of a commoner's yearly wage for years now, and that's kind of silly.  Enough of the population should have died off or fled to other places now that there should be a sustainable equilibrium.  Once the shortage is over, lower the cost of living in Allanak, and make mining/salting less profitable.

[Talia]

The new policy hasn't done anything helpful to the playerbase that I've seen, though it's completely possible I've missed it.  (I hope it has been hugely beneficial on the staff side, but I can't speak to that.)  Before, you had staff-driven plots, and player-driven plots, and player-driven plots spun off of staff-driven plots.  Now we just have player-driven plots.

Staff-driven plots still happen. E.g.: That big black-moon thing in December last year. That was after the policy change. But, creating and running new staff-driven plots for the playerbase is now not the plotting priority.

If the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

Most of what's on your list is simply not going to happen because the staff has a responsibility to balance the game, prevent abuse, and enforce IC reality. Pretty much everything you suggested goes against that. Plots are not a higher good than balance, fairness, and reality; and especially not when balance, fairness, and reality do not have to be thrown out in order for plots to happen.

[Barzalene]

I tried to read everything that was written today, while pretending to be working. Except I actually was, so I may say things already said and not properly credit the person who said them. Apologies.

Here is what I loved about Imm (staff now) run plots:
There was an excitement that started in one place, and spread and trickled down until much of the game was involved, even if not directly. And forces built and began to encompass the world, and eventually became an HRPT because it became so big it had to climax.

I think in many ways the new direction is wonderful. I like that more is in player hands. I just wonder if it has to be all or nothing. Couldn't we have the family meal? One from column A and two from column B?

Here are some proposals, that may not work. Maybe something will stick though:
What if there were one or two staff run world plots a year?
What if the staff broke the year up into pieces and watched the player run plots and adopted whichever was furtherest along and made that the imm run plot?
Or what if they started the plot but left the end open ended and used however things ended for a jumping off place for the next one?
I would like to lobby for plots, player or staff generated. Maybe staff could generate plots just when things languish.

I'm being selfish. I like world changing moments that define each era. So, I want to be sure they'll be there.

Staff might be able to give players whose PCs are in positions to start plots ideas on what they could do. In that sense they wouldn't be creating plots for players, but giving PCs goals to accomplish following whichever path they desire. To use a random example, staff could animate a higher-up to approach a House Nenyuk Agent PC and instruct them to build a new apartment building. Now that player has to get creative and figure out on their own how to go about that. After the PC goes through all the IC hoops, the apartment gets added in, and hopefully the PC will have some ideas about what else he can do without a nudge from staff next time. In essence, the role of staff here was primarily to throw the bone (they also changed the area to accommodate the apartment building, but they would have done this if the player though of the plot himself).

If they don't already, staff might also consider rewarding PCs that complete plots or a series of plots, if some kind of reward is warranted. Maybe in the previous example, the Nenyuk higher-up gives 10% of all the rent earned from that apartment to the PC Agent. Now not only is the PC getting more money which he can use for more plots, he is also encouraged to start a new plot: to encourage others to rent in the new apartment building.

Rewards that lead into plots are the best kind of reward. Instead of giving a noble a silver necklace for finishing an important plot, give her a chunk of raw silver the House seniors had on hand, and an invitation to go find someone to forge it into something nice. Money (especially a steady flow of it, which should be easy to give with the relatively new payday code) greases the wheels of some plots. Promotions open up more plots to promoted PCs since they gain more authority.

As to the point on conflict, I think a reasonable compromise between "starting a new clan/clans" (which requires a lot of staff work) and the laissez-faire "let players do it themselves" (which can be daunting or impossible as Goulet said) is sponsoring roles for the sole purpose of causing conflicts (that is not to say the current sponsored roles usually offered don't cause conflicts - they can, and should). Staff could choose players that have demonstrably handled certain types of conflicts well and set them up as raiders, dissenters against certain cities, deserters of certain clans, "terrorists", and worse. In this way, staff leave the conflicts to players, their sole role being dropping the conflict-starters into the game. In essence they are starting plots in this way, but the framework they will come up with will be very bare-bones. They could post on Staff Announcements asking for a few raiders, without being more specific, and give players the task of using their background to describe the PC's stomping grounds, methods, etc. It is up to the players on both sides of the conflict to decide how to proceed.

I liked these ideas.

I'd like the Staff to take more of the reins.

Players, or the majority of us, are relatively content to live out our PC's small chunk of life. Not many contribute towards 'the big goal'. The way I see it, the playerbase is a slow-trotting cow. Sometimes, when not motivated, we are more than content to stop and chew on our patch of grass - And that's the end of it. Like a herder or Cowboy, sometimes we need to get poked and prodded back into action.

I know alot of players just WAITING for the chance to be the Hero. The Chance to help keep the ball rolling but I'm more comfortable when the staff develops the ball to be pushed.

The Staff see where they want to go, where they want to see the world of Zalanthas change - We the players are the tools, the implements of change. The world doesn't revolve solely around us.

I also thought this was interesting, and for me, at least, true. I'm a cow. Sad but true.

[Dar]

Overall, I didnt notice much problem with starting plots when I was leading a clan. It 'can' be disheartening when you write a whole shitton of text of a very busy week, get a one liner response and then two weeks later, the same imm who responded shows clear signs that he's not aware of half of a report you wrote. But I just write it off to an immense paperwork load.

Also makes me feel all fuzzy at heart, when I just totally ignore Imms as an independant, and then get asked to report in more, because my plots are beginning to affect too many people.

[Old Kank]

If the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

Most of what's on your list is simply not going to happen because the staff has a responsibility to balance the game, prevent abuse, and enforce IC reality. Pretty much everything you suggested goes against that. Plots are not a higher good than balance, fairness, and reality; and especially not when balance, fairness, and reality do not have to be thrown out in order for plots to happen.

I agree, most of what I suggested would tilt things in the favor of players that are out doing big things, but I disagree that that's a bad thing.  That's the way video games work.

If the focus is now on player-driven stuff, then there should be some recognition that, for players, doing things is tedious, nerve-wracking, beloved-character-risking work, and so there should be some encouragement to undertake things.  I think the way to do that is to make "doing things" the path of least resistance, but I welcome other ideas if anyone else has any. 

[KankWhisperer]

-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

Give the 'byn a stable then. If you need to take three people out that's already sixty coins so profit 240. That'd also be six shares. So thats fourty coins to risk your life for the troopers along. Yeah fourty coins won't buy shit. Pretty pathetic and not going to keep ANYONE in the 'byn. Three hundred is a fucking bare minimum.

[mansa]

I haven't played ArmageddonMUD since my last character died in April.

I tried to get a few rooms changed in the area where I played, and after sitting on the request for two months I forgot about it.

Some of the things I wanted changed were rooms.  Why did I want them changed?  Because I thought that it would help create new ideas and new areas of game play, if certain rooms had an additional exit or if the room description was changed slightly.  It would allow some people to create their own little plots, if things were slightly different.

One example was a bar that had the main description something to the effect of, "People are seen about here cleaning up."  That room description has not been changed in about 2 real life years.  I asked to have it updated, and wanted to add more to the room description, so I went to Kadius and asked them for a door.  After a month, Kadius' PC came up to me and gave me a bunch of logs and OOC Pretend it's a door.

I put the logs in the back room of the area and they are PROBABLY STILL THERE SINCE JANUARY.

I asked around if I wanted to get a new drink item added to a bar.    I wanted to have something implemented that would add more character to that specific area of the game.  






examples:

Immortal:
Probably not going to see any of the building done.  I'll look at a few things, but right now new building is still pretty much a no.

Immortal:
You put forth some very interesting and true points, Aeron. Let me talk this over with OTHER IMMORTAL next week before I give you a solid yay/nay.





I don't know what to do, to get the things I want accomplished, when the things I want accomplished require an update to room descriptions / new items created / new npcs.

[Semper]

There's really a lot of thoughts and tangents on this thread that it's hard for me to keep up with them all... That said, I thought I'd give a summary of how I feel the current player-run plots go in hand versus staff-run plots, and why they do and/or don't work. The how seems to have been mentioned a couple of times in prior posts, so I won't mention that here. (edited: bolded things to make it easier to seperate the topics from the rest)

I think the best illustration that I can use for this is the process required to write and develop stories. You can think of staff as the author(s) of the book, with the book being Zalanthas, and the players and NPCs being the characters in the story. While we as players have a lot of power to bring Player Characters to life, and a great deal of control over our individual characters, we're still bound within the environment and rules set for the book. It's the authors who have the tools available to allow things to run from start to finish. Authors are able to step back and see the big picture, have the tools to be able to make things happen, and insight/knowledge to keep things within the bounds set for that environment. As a character within that book however, players are limited to only the specific area of influence that their character is capable of. When many characters come together, of course big things are possible, but never as drastic or with the potential that the actual author can have/wield.

Another way to possibly think about things is that player-driven plots begin from the bottom, and must work upward. With the exception (somewhat) of staff-sponsored roles, all PCs start from the bottom, in skill, but also in game history to some extent. Even templars, nobles, and GMH family members begin at the bottom of their rung, and it's -impossible-, simply due to the possibility of abuse, for them to ever become Heads of their House, or a Black Robe, or even (gasp) a sorceror-king. It's these BIG players that are capable of driving plots in every aspect, from the top down, and without staff to animate and bring these figures into the picture, it's like watching a chicken running around without its head. It might -look- like it's alive, but it'll eventually flop dead.

Another image that comes to mind is like ants (players) trying to move a loaf of bread (a plot). Ants can lift a very huge amount compared to their mass, but it just doesn't compare to a human picking up the loaf from the ground and moving it around. Another situation using the same model is that while ants can carry pieces of a loaf in crumb sizes, it's never quite as large a possible impact as simply moving the entire loaf together.

Staff-driven plots, on the other hand, work from the top down (generally). The disadvantage in the pure staff-driven plot is that players might feel like they don't have -enough- control of things. But when there's structure, with a large degree of freedom of action built in, I think that's a model that both players and staff can be able to work with, and quite possibly what (I think) the staff might originally have intended with the changes to plot focus, but just simply haven't been able to implement as well, or get the players to "get it".

While I can understand the staff's point of wanting a hands-off approach to plots for the most part, I still believe it's necessary that they be involved in some aspects to provide the bigger picture when players attempt to work with plots. Last illustration, I swear, but it simply gets my point across much better. Let players be able to throw the pebbles into a pond and make waves, but they can't do that without the stones provided for them from the staff. How big of a wave players can make also depends on how big of a stone the staff give them.

Hope I've stated all this clear enough.

[valeria]

These are the observations and suggestions I have, both from player a PC leader myself, and from talking to other people playing PC leaders.  The frustrations seem to be pretty uniform across the board.  I've tried not to make this about any one PC's issues.

This post is from the perspective of someone who is moderately new (by which I mean hasn't been playing the game for 5-20 years) but who wants to play a leader.  This isn't accusatory toward any party or parties; I'm really trying to explain what I think are the defects in the system so that maybe some of them can be fixed, leading to a less frustrating leadership experience for everyone involved.

This discussion involves a PC leader, who probably feels they are expected to "get things done"--not even an indepenent who is trying to get things done.

Issue One.  The PC leader is given very little idea of what they should be doing, or what they should consider to be realistically attainable.

Even though the PC has been in Y House for all of their life, and would have been watching the other members of Y House doing their thing at all levels of leadership, there is nowhere a PC leader has access to even a list of examples of things they would have seen of things that members of their own House have done.  In real life when I think of my career goals, I look around myself at what other successful people in my field have done, and at least have a sense of what I should be doing.  I had no sense of what my PC leader should be doing, only the vague sense that I was around to "make stuff happen".  What stuff?  Who knows.  If it is never detailed to my PC what was expected of her, she's very likely going to have unrealistic expectations...

...the player may even include goals in their character application.  Because their application has been accepted, the player probably has the expectation that these are realistic and attainable goals, if they work on them hard enough and long enough.  This may or may not be the case--but if it isn't the case, they almost definitely aren't told that.  They enter the role with the expectation that they are going to do X.  In the first report they give, detailing their tentative plans for X, they are then told "Your superiors are uninterested in this at this time."  This sets the player up for immediate disappointment.  It would be more logical to just straight up tell the player on accepting their application that X is probably an unreasonable goal and is not likely to ever happen, and THEN let the player decide if they really want to play in the role, when perhaps they built their entire character on a faulty premise... instead of letting them get excited about it, and into the game... only to have their legs chopped out from under them, leading to a frustrating leader experience.  For instance, it makes sense that if the PC's eventual goal is to start a War with Mars, and PC's superiors are never going to go for the War with Mars concept, the PC has already brought this idea up to their superiors and had it shot down.  It'd be humane to save the player some pain there.

Issue Two.  The PC leader is low-ranking in comparison to the overall structure of Y House, can always be told "no" but is probably not told why, and has no recourse to try and get a "yes" through alternate political means.  Also, a "no" feels like an OOC dictum, not an IC one.

Because you have no idea what's expected of you, and no basis from which to judge what realistic goals are, it's logical to default to thinking "Aha!  Well, such and such PC did this other thing.  So how about I try to do something similar..." Right up until you get told no. 

This is compounded by the next point--which seems to be a very common complaint--when getting told no on a project, a PC will not be told why.  Or if they are told why, it is only in the most general terms.  When I'm told no in real life, my immediate response is to ask why (in the rare instance the reason isn't already given).  Usually you only get a very blanket response, something like "The House has decided not to pursue this at this time."  You know that anyone is going to want to know why, so why wait for them to have to turn around and ASK why?  I propose adding a very simple clause, starting with the word 'because,' to any instance where a player is told no on an idea.  For instance "because there are political pressures against it."  Not only does it answer the player's burning question, but it gives them something new to figure out--what political pressures?  Or even "because we feel this would be unbalancing to the game/unrealistic at this time," or "because we do not have the time/wherewithal to code/manpower to support this idea at this time."  The vast majority of us understand you're volunteering, that time and resources are limited, that balance is a strong consideration, and so on.  If when the decision was an OOC one, you were told so, then when the decisions are IC ones, you trust that there is some IC reason why you aren't capable of doing something--and can maybe initiate some scheming to get around it, instead of feeling like you've been given an oblique OOC "not going to happen--buzz off."

Issue Three.  Now that you've been told "no" on all of your ideas, you are out of ideas for projects.  You have no one to go to for advice.  You have no opportunity to change the situation.

Additionally, if "The House is not interested in X at this time, but we'd be willing to support you in realistically playing out the consequences of trying to get around this dictum," is what's meant by "The House is not interested in X at this time," I really wish that's what would be said.  As it stands, because in the majority of instances you do not receive an IC reason from staff as to why you're not allowed to do something, the phrase "The House is not interested in X at this time," without further elaboration, comes across as an OOC communication--buzz off, we aren't going to support you in this.  This is also very highly discouraging and a point of frustration.

PCs should be able to ask their PC leaders for advice and guidance.  If something just isn't working, and I don't know where it's going wrong, I'm going to turn to someone with a little more experience and offload the scenario to ask for advice.  The advice could be right or wrong, but it's always something you're going to be able to find.  Often, I feel like if I'm stuck and I ask the staff what I need to do, the answer is "Well, what do you think you need to do?"  If I knew, I wouldn't be asking.  Some players just aren't going to know how to pick up something and run with it.  I don't think it would make the game any less "player driven" to have an NPC give a PC leader advice about how to go about what they're floundering around and obviously getting severely frustrated trying to accomplish.  The player probably just doesn't know what tools are available to them, even though it might be very IC for them to know that.

Finally, you are not given the opportunity to manipulate your NPC leaders in ways which would be realistic to the type of heirarchical setting the current game is placed in.  Chances are your House Head doesn't give a rat's ass what your low ranking PC leader is doing.  You're probably getting told "no" by some form of middle management.  In real life, you might go to a different person and see what they think about your project.  You might quietly garner support among your peers and put some pressure on the upper levels to conform to your point of view.  If it really is the highest person telling you no, you might try to have them assassinated to get a more receptive person in there.  These are all things that it doesn't feel like you can do to your NPC leadership.

Result.  The PC leader feels as though they are engaged in a constant guessing game with the staff, and only gets more and more frustrated.

The meaning of "player driven" is lost in the process.  The player instead feels like they are engaged in a constant guessing-game with the staff, in the nature of "I'll suggest this," "No," "So how about this?" "No," "Well why don't you just tell me what you want?"  Even when I had the drive and energy to try to get things accomplished, things which I felt would get people around me motivated and involved and having fun, it seemed like the process of getting things done was an incomprehensible guessing game with no answers to any questions being asked. 

Personal view.

I think a huge problem with "player driven" is that anything that is going to involve more than a very small quantity of PCs on anything more than a very personal level is eventually going to require staff support.  Even for the very, very small things I wanted to get done with a leader PC, the process of getting staff support was an abyssal pit of frustration, even when the staffers I was working with directly were personally awesome and responsive.  As a result, I have no more energy to want to try to navigate anything that may possibly even require staff support.  This isn't because I don't like the staff, or because I don't think they mean well (and in fact, I think they do a pretty awesome job of running the game).  But I have simply had no positive experience with getting anything staff supported, and received no feedback about why my attempts were not working or did not work.  As a result, anything that I "player drive" will be tiny personal plots that I have already thought through and know that I do not need staff support on any aspect.  I can't feel that my experiences have been isolated (as illustrated elsewhere in this thread, particularly Mansa's post above), and I think feelings like mine are part of the reason you don't see "big plots" which are "player driven."

___________________

Synopsis of suggestions to cut down on player frustration with "player driven" leadership roles--

1. Give newly incoming leaders some idea of what is expected of their role, especially when this may not be OOCly obvious, or the player is newer.
2. Give newly incoming leaders some idea of what is possible in their role, potentially through a list of IC events or rumors.
3. Straight up tell the player when goals they have listed in a character application are not likely to be attainable, especially when this goal is central to the application, before they apply the PC.
4. Be more forthcoming with reasons why the player is being told "no" on a project, and delineate between an IC reason (which may be ICly steered around) and an OOC reason (which is not).
5. Allow leader PCs to ask for reasonable advice (good or bad) when they are stuck on obtaining a goal.
6. Prompt leader PCs who are floundering and frustrated with reasonable advice (good or bad).
7. Make it easier to attain relatively tiny game changes, especially ones that would require very little staff work, but would leave players feeling like they have "accomplished" something their character spent a lot of time and effort on.

[X-D]

I'm going to comment on the raider clan comments.

Remember, Blackmoon was started by players. They were closed(destroyed) for good reason at the time, but it is up to staff to make that public, I cannot remember if they did at the time.

I think enough of you are talking about an open raiding clan to actually make a go at starting one.

Make a PC aimed at it, if they live long enough, begin recruiting, set up shop somewhere and have at it.

But something that is important is docs, write up docs that give the prospective clan rules and make them a game asset.
A raiding clan that kills everybody and has no rules of conduct will never be coded, hell it will never last long enough to matter.

Realize that it will not be easy, and not even because of staff. You will have to figure out a way to deal with existing raiding clans and other clans that have stakes in the area you want to set up shop or do business.

But in the end, if you come up with good docs and manage to keep the clan alive and show they are an asset to the game world, I bet staff would be more then happy to put in a bit of work in coding them.

[Decameron]

Issue One.  The PC leader is given very little idea of what they should be doing, or what they should consider to be realistically attainable.

I believe that this issue could be alleviated with the addition of 'What you would know' as a PC  leader, well beyond the history of the beginnings of the clan, as seems to be standard. The organization and long faded accomplishments of the House/Organization aside, a player needs to have some idea of what is/ has been happening around them, and how it effects the stated clan. Give me a listing of current situations surrounding the organization, and you can essentially keep how the gardens in the backyard got started, because the fluff about the gardens isn't going to give me some idea of what to do with my character and get me started on my feet. After this list, yes – I can deal with the rest, the gaining contacts, gathering information, etc, but clans aren't so god-damned blind and secluded that they wouldn't have at least some general direction to point characters towards, just to give them a starting push. Sorry, if that sounds bitter, but I believe it'd greatly assist in reducing the "Hi I am Lord <Storedinaweek>" situations, and providing direction.

For example : From a staff perspective if you wish to make this realistic, gather a list of present topics of interest and randomly choose a few to give to a said noble, then give a few more to another leader who just got accepted, etc. They can be two nobles in the same clan who know different things, or might even have misinformation pitting them against each other. At least they'll be busy. These PCs aren't all kept in the same room until they are activated by the players, they had a life, and in that life, they would have most likely heard different rumors and gained different perspectives.

My greatest disappointment when I had a Templar years ago was that I started knowing nothing more about the Templarate than I knew before I was accepted. With the amount of expectations from the staff, I believe that's simply unrealistic standards.

Issue Two.  The PC leader is low-ranking in comparison to the overall structure of Y House, can always be told "no" but is probably not told why, and has no recourse to try and get a "yes" through alternate political means.  Also, a "no" feels like an OOC dictum, not an IC one.

Sometimes "No" is an OOC dictum, and if it isn't, then my suggestion? React accordingly. Feel stifled by your NPC overseer? Think your boss has out-lived his purpose and want to work for a different npc boss instead? Do something. If you're going to store over it anyway, then at least go down starting conflict if you couldn't previously. Take them out, manipulate them, black-mail them. Just because your NPC is run by an immortal doesn't mean that the character is immortal, kill them. Get your underlings involved. Sure, you may get IC punishment, if you fail, but it sounds like a pretty pathetic situation to begin with. The point isn't to go around killing your NPC superiors; it's more about starting to treat them like actual pcs rather than NPCs. You can respect them, as your boss, but their word isn't God.

The policy at present is that there is no place for higher-ranked PCs in the game. There will be no Red-Robed, Senior Ladies, etc. It's a glass ceiling, but it's there in place to bring a balance. Therefore, essentially you're in that particular position to lead those beneath you and act as your character would, despite who tells you what. But because you can't overthrow Tek doesn't mean you can't gain power within the slow building attempts to do so. People have stupid, unrealistic dreams all the time. The only difference is that there is no omnipresent being telling them, "You can't do that." So, I suppose my question is, given that: Just because you're told no, why are you stopping?

Issue Three.  Now that you've been told "no" on all of your ideas, you are out of ideas for projects.  You have no one to go to for advice.  You have no opportunity to change the situation.
In real life, you might go to a different person and see what they think about your project.  You might quietly garner support among your peers and put some pressure on the upper levels to conform to your point of view.  If it really is the highest person telling you no, you might try to have them assassinated to get a more receptive person in there.  These are all things that it doesn't feel like you can do to your NPC leadership.

I am surprised this hasn't worked, if you actually tried this. I've already touched on this but: using your own example – why don't you go to your other boss? You can send the Imm's a letter to send to the individual (if they can read/write) or otherwise pass information to the Imms. This is actually one of the better aspects of the present system, actually. It takes hell of a lot of less time to get a simple e-mail rather than wasting a day waiting for Lady Who-gives-a-fuck to show up to spit in your face and tell you what a horrible job you're doing. NPCs don't like each other anymore than PCs do – and I believe the staff does a good job at representing this, given the wide variety of replies I've received from my own letters in the past.

Result.  The PC leader feels as though they are engaged in a constant guessing game with the staff, and only gets more and more frustrated.

You are. I don't really have anything to counter that. The staff isn't there to play the game for you. There are at times when it absolutely feels that you're the only living representative of an organization which seems entirely separate from you. You're essentially flying solo, and are given the task of babysitting those beneath you and dealing with an endless loop of soap-opera antics. But, no one is going to change that for you – So, you keep at the plots, until one works, or you're passionate enough to force it to work, and you keep those beneath you active, because if you're not plotting, someone else is, and maybe you can steal one of their ideas.

Personal view.

Here's mine: I've rewritten this three or four times now, and something seems to come out right. Anyway, I changed the game. It took roughly two and a half OOC years, and my changes may or may not have been lasting, but I changed it. At times, I wouldn't give it up for anything in the world, and at others I felt like I had taken on nothing more than a second job. Leadership roles are difficult – and while it used to be that an Imm might hold your hand over it, I think there's something to be said over developing our own ideas. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Imm-driven plots I had been involved in, but I also feel a sense of achievement knowing that something that I had striven towards ended up working and that for however long, those changes mattered. I don't think I would've felt the same if I had been hand-fed the situation, regardless of the additional frustrations that it involved.  I won't say that I haven't been avoiding leadership roles since my experiences, because I have.

Despite this, my advice towards any seeking a leadership role would be to keep in constant communication with the staff. If they won't flat-out assist you, then at least they can stand still long enough to bounce ideas off of. You might not always get replies, but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone gave you that 'flat-out no', either. Keep in contact with the NPCs of your organization. The staff might not have opinions, but maybe the NPCs do. Treat them like you would those surrounding you, make friends, enemies – interaction is what drives every single role in this game, whether you're out in the wilderness or jammed in a crowded tavern. Use your employees. I can't tell you how many times small plots have come up by simply getting a report, and having a simple conversation. Spy, cheat, steal, black-mail, betray, and kill – Whatever you have to do, as long as the role is fun for you, it'll bleed over to others. Once you stop, they'll stop, and that's never good for anyone. Wish I could put my own experience into better words, but like any other role it's an up and down of victory, defeat and everything in between, I guess the crucial part is using that to continue the story.

[Aaron Goulet]

I like the intent of your idea, but I'm going to counteroffer to your suggestion: As a part of the indies/tribals team, that means I help handle Unclanned staff. Most of your "conflict starter" ideas would fall into the Unclanned area. If a player is interested in playing this type of role, I would encourage him/her to send in a request to Unclanned staff to discuss realistic IC vectors for conflict and how they can go about achieving those conflicts 100% in game, 100% player-driven. No one needs to wait around for staff permission or support to start conflict, but if you want to do it long-term or large-scale, you will probably want to be in communication with the staff about that. That is to say: I'm not going to give you a private lair or boost your skills, but I will do my best to guide you just like any of my clan members. (Because you are, if you're Unclanned.)

It is encouraging to know that the staff cares about unclanned characters; this has given me more incentive to submit reports with the same manner of consistency that I did with my clanned characters from here on in.  So, thank you for that!

I understand that you were replying to Cutthroat, but I wanted to elaborate on my earlier thought by saying that I, personally, am not interested in playing an antagonistic character (or "conflict starter", as you put it), but I feel that having such characters around would create more opportunities for plots.  At present, most (but not all) of the game's conflict is created by the environment rather than other players, and it's hard to generate plots around that premise alone.  Certainly there are rivalries and people who just plain dislike each other, but there are few clearly defined "enemies" for characters to rally against for larger plot-like things.  Most people don't want to play such roles because there is little support (there are few, if any, clans that encourage antagonistic characters), it's difficult to recruit without getting smited, and usually you get smeared by a coded clan before you get anywhere.  At least, that is my impression of the situation.

And by antagonists/enemies, I don't mean "bad guys"; just people who, for one reason or another, pose a threat.  This could include anything from a band of raiders, to an organization competing for limited (coded) resources, to a bunch of sorcerers/mindbenders/elementalists/mutants/heretics who just want to establish themselves a home or settlement and be left alone by the major powers.

Since this is an open dialog between the players and the staff, however, I'd like to follow up my thoughts with a few questions:  Does the staff feel that the game could use some more conflict for the purposes of generating plots?  If so, what form(s) would you like to see it manifest (player-verus-player, etc.), and how?

[mansa]

I thought the no-npc boss policy means that you can't kill your boss.
Since you've only spoke to your boss through email.  the Boss doesn't exist in game.

[Shabago]

Most of what's on your list is simply not going to happen because the staff has a responsibility to balance the game, prevent abuse, and enforce IC reality. Pretty much everything you suggested goes against that. Plots are not a higher good than balance, fairness, and reality; and especially not when balance, fairness, and reality do not have to be thrown out in order for plots to happen.

This is a good example of what I discussed in my initial post. I don't mean to single you out at all, Talia, as I know it's the over-all policy, but lets take a look at this a bit more closely.

Let players recruit OOC, both for family members as well as general clan members.  Yes, it's kind of stupid and there's potential for abuse, but shit gets done when you work with people you can trust and rely on.

Lets be honest here. This already happens due to the various OOC groups. If Player A wants to play with player B, they're likely going to by a "Hey buddy, I'm playing in Oash. Come join me and we'll totally kick some arse." Via PM or various messagers.

-Grant clanned PCs much more autonomy and authority to run their own clans.

This SHOULD be allowed, at least to an extent. If the hands-off means no more boss animations, who the heck is steering? When did we leave the RP intense style of game to OOC emails? IMO, this just leaves a massive, empty void in the game-world that needs filling. Solution? If there is a PC in Clan X that has obtained a rank to order something to happen, it should happen. I sincerely doubt that Lord Fancypants is going to order the whole of his house to jump into the silt just because he can. Aren't sponsored roles given to players that have shown they can be trusted with that power? Promotions to underlings that have demonstrated they can be trusted with that responsibility?

-Let the indies get away with stupid stuff.  If Amos and Malik can spamcraft their way to millions of 'sid, let them build a wagon without going through 10 RL-months worth of hoops.

Heh. I rather dislike the use of "spamcraft" in here, but you know what? People who work for years and years IC, save every single sid to have something made, it should be made. Maybe make it like the special app process. Limit it to two or three special items per RL year or two. It goes without saying this would include the "legwork" from the PC(s) in getting material X Y Z, paying off the officals (if necessary) to say sure, giver and so on. If that PC dies, and another group of PCs had similiar undertakings, recycle it. If not, it falls into disrepair and falls apart (purged). No mess, no clutter. Supply and demand.

-Make the noble houses more appealing.  Pay noble clan members much, much more, and give them discounts on items, and make the law a little flexible in their favor.

I agree this won't work, because (and it's been talked to death) that the economy in general is broken in numerous ways and would take an ungodly undertaking to fix. 2.0? Likely a whole lot better with the fresh slate when it comes. However, I imagine it IS possible to make clans more appealing through incentives, bonuses and political favor.

-Bump the clan caps up a notch.  If House Kadius becomes a massive blob that consumes all PCs before it... so be it.  They must be doing something right in order to attract that many players.

A bump I could entertain, but having the whole of the PB in a general area in one clan would get very stale, very quick with lack of outside conflict and so on.

-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

Again, there could be a compromise here. What if the Byn had a *gasp* wagon? And charged fifty to a hundred sids per head to go and see X location, go to Y city. Affordable for each PC and the Byn still gets an awesome haul by shoving ten of them into the wagon. Only 5 PCs want to go/pay? Supply and demand, pay 75 to 150 instead. Less then three PCs? Trip cancelled and rebooked when more have a need. That would be IC.

-Randomly put interesting items into the game, in the hands of low-level people, if possible.  It doesn't have to be the Cursed Sword of Steinal or anything.  A horse, a pet quirri, or an ancient but useless artifact will all work nicely to spur interest and intrigue.

Also doable.

Now, yes I realise oldkanks points were just as examples or tongue-in-cheek, and for the most part, so were my responses to them, but hopefully my point is clear. Player-driven plots/stories just aren't there. There are 'Staff-allowed, player-driven plots'. That is NOT hands off in any way that I know of. Furthermore, the last portion of Talia's post, from the point of 'Plots are not a higher good then balance' through to the end...

Who decides what is "fair" or "ICly realistic"? Top tier staff. Not the players, nor lower tier staff. So, instead of getting a flat "No" (Maybe with an explanation why as well), perhaps there should be a movement towards "This could be doable, if this, this and this were modified to not upset the game balance." If those concerns/reasons are addressed, then the plot should move forward. If the player can't be arsed to put in the work, or just utterly refuses to change it, then tough beans. But, at least then it would be the PLAYERS decision in this supposed "Player-driven" plots and stories. Otherwise, I think the term "Hands-off policy" should go right on out the window because nothing gets done on any sort of larger scale without staff hands all over it.

[Talia]

Otherwise, I think the term "Hands-off policy" should go right on out the window because nothing gets done on any sort of larger scale without staff hands all over it.

I agree, the term "hands-off policy" should go out the window, because that's not what the policy was ever stated to be. If that's been your perception of the policy, then that's simply not correct. I have seen some players behaving as if they did believe that the policy is a "hands-off policy," and they tend to get disappointed--but you can't blame staff for that. It's a pretty gross misinterpretation of the policy.

I thought the no-npc boss policy means that you can't kill your boss.
Since you've only spoke to your boss through email.  the Boss doesn't exist in game.

The NPCs are still there. You can still kill them. Again...you are misinterpreting. In this case, the misinterpretation seems to be being done for the purpose of exaggeration. You're making the policy into something it is definitely not.

[Riev]

*blink*

Shabago. I'm truly sorry you became a Legend. Your thoughts on this matter seem to echo mine, almost to a T.

And I do, I really -really- do understand the need for the game the way it is. However, it is from on high that all decisions are made, to the point where I feel like we're all participating in a Philip Zimbardo case study. Again, that is not meant to poke at anyone in particular, but as a player, my feeling is I am a prisoner, the staff are the guards, and because there is nobody to tell the guards no, the prisoners get the shaft.

[Talia]

I, personally, am not interested in playing an antagonistic character (or "conflict starter", as you put it), but I feel that having such characters around would create more opportunities for plots.  At present, most (but not all) of the game's conflict is created by the environment rather than other players, and it's hard to generate plots around that premise alone.  Certainly there are rivalries and people who just plain dislike each other, but there are few clearly defined "enemies" for characters to rally against for larger plot-like things.  Most people don't want to play such roles because there is little support (there are few, if any, clans that encourage antagonistic characters), it's difficult to recruit without getting smited, and usually you get smeared by a coded clan before you get anywhere.  At least, that is my impression of the situation.

And by antagonists/enemies, I don't mean "bad guys"; just people who, for one reason or another, pose a threat.  This could include anything from a band of raiders, to an organization competing for limited (coded) resources, to a bunch of sorcerers/mindbenders/elementalists/mutants/heretics who just want to establish themselves a home or settlement and be left alone by the major powers.

And you don't have to play that type of character. Fortunately, there are players who are interested, and some of them are even doing it right now. There are some serious, interesting, well-played bad guys lurking where you just not may be seeing them...yet.

Since this is an open dialog between the players and the staff, however, I'd like to follow up my thoughts with a few questions:  Does the staff feel that the game could use some more conflict for the purposes of generating plots?  If so, what form(s) would you like to see it manifest (player-verus-player, etc.), and how?

I'd like to see players trying to move plots that are aimed at creating conflicts between organizations, within regions, and across the world. I know that sounds vague, but...that's what I'd like to see.

[Talia]

it is from on high that all decisions are made, to the point where I feel like we're all participating in a Philip Zimbardo case study. Again, that is not meant to poke at anyone in particular, but as a player, my feeling is I am a prisoner, the staff are the guards, and because there is nobody to tell the guards no, the prisoners get the shaft.

I don't mean to be flippant, but how is this different from players have always felt about the game? Whether this perception is correct or incorrect (I believe it's very much not correct), players seem to always think it. I don't think that has much to do with reality; rather it's got to do with the "veil," as staggerlee described.

[valeria]

A bunch of stuff.

I wasn't saying that the system is completely unworkable, or that players should be "hand-fed" plot ideas--I was pointing out very common frustrations from the perspective of newish leader PCs with the "player driven" system.  Certainly, some players can eventually work around to getting some things accomplished.  But it seems like the majority store, and within a matter of months, based on how many leaders I see cycle through the positions.

I'm not certain you read anything past the underlined points.  At least, you didn't comment on any of the actual suggestions.  Sure "suck it up and try to work around it" is always advice anyone can choose to take, but it's not going to help the experience of frustration by many of the leader PCs I've talked to, which is what leads to players not being interested in starting plots which need staff support, which contributes to hamstringing the "player driven" system... which is what the whole point of my post (and the suggestions) was about.

[Decameron]

A bunch of stuff.

Bunch of other stuff.

I certainly did read your post, which is why I took the time to reply to it in the length fashion I did.  

And I believe I did comment on your points, however:
- I failed to see any difficulty in e-mailing the staff for communication, generating some sort of relationship with NPCs through written-letters or gossip.
-I didn't say 'suck it up' once in the entire post. I said it was difficult. I said the staff wasn't there to play the role for you. I suggested alternatives.
-I suggested as well, that further documentation would lend assistance to your concerns about individuals starting out 'without a clue'.
-Suggested a system by which recent events (regardless of their accuracy) could be provided at random to these starting out PCs, to give them something to do.

But .. you know all that, having read the post.