A Modest Proposal Regarding OOC Coordination

[Cutthroat]

OOC communication is easiest (perhaps even best way) to really hash out a full plot.  And there lies the trouble, Wizturbo has hit the nail on the head -- players directing and creating plots isn't something the Staff really wants.

What I've seen in game and on the GDB (through RPT announcements) runs entirely contrary to this seemingly popular argument. The staff absolutely want players to create plots and direct them. Since the last HRPT there have been many player-run plots, everywhere. If you can't see examples of this in game, look harder or look elsewhere. It's usually not all that hidden. Or try to start a plot on your own. If your PC has the means and the world could conceivably allow it, it's only a matter of reporting to staff and roleplaying the effort.

Why some snark-type people can't simply say, "While your argument is a good one, we just don't see the MUD going in that direction" instead of pretending like the argument has no merit, I don't know.

To be honest, I don't see the argument as "good" when it's presented as the only viable choice and there are no efforts to argue against the counterproposals offered.

[Nyr]

OOC communication is easiest (perhaps even best way) to really hash out a full plot.  And there lies the trouble, Wizturbo has hit the nail on the head -- players directing and creating plots isn't something the Staff really wants.  

There are different ways to lead:  it just seems the current staff is more "stick" than "carrot", rather put on lots of rules to restrict the possibility of a few problems, kind of like the teacher who uses a lot of "whole class punishments" than only targeting the actual people responsible.

Why some snark-type people can't simply say, "While your argument is a good one, we just don't see the MUD going in that direction" instead of pretending like the argument has no merit, I don't know.

There is evidence to the contrary out there, but I don't have a problem with people thinking that anymore.  Speaking as an administrator, I much prefer supporting player-led plots and causing the gameworld to react appropriately than supporting something I wrote up myself.  

I have some small issue with OOC communication itself, but we're not talking about just talking out-of-character about the game, about a past role, about getting playtimes together, about talking on the GDB, or even about creating a family role together.

I'm not convinced that the argument for OOC coordination to create preset roles to work with other characters based on a karma system that depicts how many people the initial coordinator can have in their OOC-ly created group is a good one.  I can understand the frustration with finding conflict and roles in-game.  I do think this would be one policy solution to that.  I also think this would be the cause of several problems that are much worse.  The good thing--having a preset role to jump into with some friends--spells the benefits out in advance.  The reason that the staff rebuttal may be a hard argument to swallow is that the problems we expect would happen out of this system are intangible and based on staff experience and some player experience.  If family roles could be perverted to the point that we had to make rules to make it fair for everyone that doesn't metagame...

[Malifaxis]

Alright, I had 3 hours of sleep.  I'm going to try to type this, I'm going to try to be civil, and then I'm going to edit it out and maybe post it whole cloth on my blog, with the nice-ified version here.

No one should ever get a leg up OOC'ly in this game, REGARDLESS of karma.  If married couples (of which I know several play the game) go through great lengths to keep their roles separate (Kudos to you, Frenchy and Cajun, the same to you Dig and Path, and so many more) in game, then there's no reason a group of buddies should be able to hop in and start the next Conclave just because they have a smattering of karma.

So you are against the karma system?

He never mentioned anything about the karma system, and what he did mention has nothing to do with the karma system.

Bring on the murderous gang of buddy warriors or, it would be *Gasp* fun and entertaining. Keep your imaginary RP integrety and bring on some action.

This has been done without OOC coordination, and it's been done repeatedly, and it's been done well.  Your idea would eliminate the "done well" portion.  The word, by the way, is "integrity."

You are the snarkiest poster on the GDB also.

Nyr is delicate.  Nyr is professional and diplomatic.  Nyr is approachable on the GDB and through request, puts a LOT of time into making the game better, and applies snark in medical and theraputic amounts. You, on the other hand, wield your snark with all the subtlety of a jackhammer at a wet t-shirt contest.

And really, you didn't even know there was a karma chart before you started this thread?  FFS.  May I suggest playing the game for a while before you decide to restructure it from the ground up?

One of the reasons the staff trusts the people they have given karma is because of the exact fact that they DO NOT ENGAGE IN OOC Coordination, even when forming families or groups pre-entry!  

As for my opinion on stagnation? Where is any conflict that is anything but petty squabbling? Everyone says to be the change, but if you do anything to break up the hand holding festival, you'll get slapped down from on high. Maybe if players had groups that the Houses could target, it would liven things up.

Yeah, this game's about as stagnant as [CENSORED BECAUSE WHAT I SAID HERE IS ACTUALLY SO UNCOOL I'M NOT EVEN POSTING IT ON MY BLOG BECAUSE MY MOTHER READS IT, AND SHE WAS THE ONE WHO TAUGHT ME HOW TO SWEAR].  I myself have changed this game repeatedly through IC action only.  No staff coordination, no nothing.  I saw something, I worked towards it, it changed.  The same goes for several other people who are posting in this thread.

In comparison, you have changed this game by donating boots.  Kudos.

I guess I don't care if the houses never got another PC.I guess I don't care if the houses never got another PC.

Oh, well, since you put it that way, lets do away with all the clans.  This game is about playing a coherent and realistic harsh fantasy world.  In a world like this, people would band together.  Without the clans, it would not be realistic.  Without the independents, it would also not be realistic.

Sorry your time constraints suck.  Might I suggest Final Fantasy or WoW?  I'm sure the staff there will be far more capitulating to your "suggestions."

I really don't see how having a little flexibility and trust in the players would cause an apocalypse.

The staff is very flexible with people who are reasonable.  There's a very important word in there.  I've highlighted it.

IN DEFENSE OF THE POOR, UNPOPULAR, HATED NYR:

Nyr's job sucks.  Moderating the GDB has got to be the shittiest job on the game.  Doing it with style, a splattering of humor, and a hand that is both gentle and very, very firm is something I personally am thankful for.  Nyr puts countless hours into this game in an effort to make it a sociable environment for all those who play.  

Some of the players hate Nyr because they have been bitchsmacked.  In my experience, these bitchsmackings are always warranted.  I myself have felt the Almighty Fist o' Nyr when I was too much of a jackass.  I may very well feel it again after I hit 'post' below.  I fully realize that sometimes I cross the line on my commentary, that sometimes I am too harsh.  Why do I realize that?  Because I'm a logical, mature person who happens to have a very low threshold for bullshit, and sometimes when I call people out, my control slips and I end up going off a bit too harshly.  I thank Nyr for the times I have been called on this, as it's helped me become a better person and learn some self control.

OOC communication is easiest (perhaps even best way) to really hash out a full plot.  And there lies the trouble, Wizturbo has hit the nail on the head -- players directing and creating plots isn't something the Staff really wants.

I'd agree with this if I didn't see the evidence to the contrary ON A DAILY BASIS.



Hitting submit, hoping I don't get banned, did my best to edit this out and make it semi-non-inflamatory while still getting my point across with what I consider to be a "reasonable amount" of snark.

If I get slapped for a week or longer, know that I love you all, and that when I return, I'll still love this game and the staff that put in so much of their real lives to govern it just as much as I did pre-smack.

[Nyr]

Actually, I selected the name of the new thread since the other thread kept getting derailed after I suggested folks not derail it.  I usually will do that if I have to split off a thread from derailment, whether I cause it or whether someone else does.

[Malifaxis]

*grumble*

I'll edit that out then.

[Cutthroat]

To be fair, it was somewhat modest to start, however since then proponents have largely dodged those who have constructive criticism about the idea. It would be nice if someone supporting this idea could say why this:

What I don't understand exactly is how you can't do this with the rules that are already in place. If you want to make a group of hunters, for example, that's fine. Get three family members the usual way and recruit hunters in game. The family could lead the group, while the rest are "employees" or whatever else you could imagine. But you're never going to have everything set up for you, whether you're playing a few hours a day or a few hours a week

Isn't a good compromise between the way current things are, and the proposal. It would also be nice if anyone against the proposed idea could say how that breaks any of the rules in place (I don't see any way it does).

[Malifaxis]

To be fair, it was somewhat modest to start, however since then proponents have largely dodged those who have constructive criticism about the idea. It would be nice if someone supporting this idea could say why this:

What I don't understand exactly is how you can't do this with the rules that are already in place. If you want to make a group of hunters, for example, that's fine. Get three family members the usual way and recruit hunters in game. The family could lead the group, while the rest are "employees" or whatever else you could imagine. But you're never going to have everything set up for you, whether you're playing a few hours a day or a few hours a week

Isn't a good compromise between the way current things are, and the proposal. It would also be nice if anyone against the proposed idea could say how that breaks any of the rules in place (I don't see any way it does).

Sorry I must have missed this in my vitriol fueled pique of rage and then rapid scrub-edit.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable way to do this, but then again, I'm just this dude. 

Thanks, Cutthroat, for being sane.

[lordcooper]

Yeah.  You can still pretty much set up your little OOC group so long as you tag "Oh yeah, and they're all cousins" on the end.

[wizturbo]

OOC communication is easiest (perhaps even best way) to really hash out a full plot.  And there lies the trouble, Wizturbo has hit the nail on the head -- players directing and creating plots isn't something the Staff really wants. 

That isn't what I was trying to say in my post.  Not even a little bit.  I think the staff do want us to direct and run plots.  I just wonder if all of the restrictive policies are making it more difficult, and taking away some of the fun of the game.

[Drayab]

I'd like to think folks that are putting together families are doing it because they want to roleplay what a Zalanthan family is like.

[Cutthroat]

Yeah.  You can still pretty much set up your little OOC group so long as you tag "Oh yeah, and they're all cousins" on the end.

Yeah, I suppose it seems like it's skirting the rules a bit; however, the way I imagine it is like a cottage industry. The family plies a trade together and hires people to get the raw materials needed to continue their trade. It's pretty viable in-game, and I like to think that at least some of the shops run by independent NPCs operate in something like this manner. The players of the family members technically are allowed to go any way they want once they're in game, provided it's IC, and if it's IC for Amos Jr. to walk away from the Amos and Son Basketweavers Company, then he certainly should.

I myself have changed this game repeatedly through IC action only.  No staff coordination, no nothing.  I saw something, I worked towards it, it changed.  The same goes for several other people who are posting in this thread.

Very good point which bears repeating, so there it is, in a box. I felt when I started playing this game four years ago that my PC's actions wouldn't amount to much. However as time went on I started to feel that was not the case. OP is perhaps a newer player that hasn't had the chance to appreciate the evolution-like feeling of realizing how different things are once you begin to interact with players in a deep way, and cooperate on ways to change your little spot in the Known, or the world in its entirety.

I'd like to think folks that are putting together families are doing it because they want to roleplay what a Zalanthan family is like.

Would a Zalanthan family work together? I would say "sometimes".

[jhunter]

On topic, I could care less about this rule one way or another. I understand the reasoning it's there but I don't really think it's gonna break the game without it.

[Nyr]

Moderated out a derail that really isn't pertinent to anything in this thread.  If you hate me you can go put in a staff complaint.  I'll stack it with my others.

[Marc]

Firstly:  All I see in the GDB menu board is RE: A Modest Proposal.  Am I the only one who thought our famine problems were over? (nyuk nyuk nyuk).

Jokes aside, there is probably a sizable portion of our player base who do not remember how things were before these rules.  Back when 90% of the players and staff could be found on ISCA and OOC coordination was the name of the game even if officially disdained.  Groups, long-lost brothers, cousins, kids.  This sort of thing happened a lot (from my hazy memory) but it always seemed to be the same characters recycled I.E. lose one brother, reroll another.  Families could go on forever this way.

Example where players go to far: RL friend was the (PC) Guild leader back in the day.  "I wanna play with you!" Next char is suddenly heir to the Guild without any RP just because I made him the leader's family WITHOUT ANY STAFF OVERSIGHT or IN-GAME efforts.

Example where this culture causes stupidity: I wanted to make a gypsy.  Instead of sending in an email with my character concept (recruitment wasn't handled this way) I sit through a couple phone calls with "The Wildflower" and am told a few rumors to pass around if anyone asks about my char OOC to help metagame up the Maurk as invincible.

Example three: An icon of this game once recruited me in-game based off an ooc inquiry.  He later told me he would never have hired me based off my in-game actions if he, the player, had not agreed OOC.  My character was also a blood-member of a rival group, also established ooc.  In the end I had a spy in the opposing camp with about 15 minutes of game time and absolutely 0 in-game trail.  Stupid.
(These were last millenia.  Nothing even remotely recent.)

It's a slippery slope that we have tumbled down before.  If you allow people to extensively coordinate OOC, or at least coordinate to some degree, you are indirectly promoting OOC communication.  OOC communication CAN be totally harmless but often it is not.  By supporting and nurturing a culture where OOC coordination is the norm you are in turn supporting a culture of OOC communication and this leads to ruined plots, ruined experiences and general "spilling of the beans".

Yes we're adults (most of us), yes we can be trusted (most of us), but why take the chance?  I think this is what staff has decided.  The potential negatives outweigh the potential gains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another point on the inflexibility of the world:  This used to drive me batty.  "WTF do you mean I can't get rid of Salarr if I kill them all and set up weaponshops!?  If you just let me do it, STAFF, I could do it!"  Now it really is comforting.

The Noble Houses, the Merchant Houses.  The organizations that are seemingly unshakable offer the backdrop for our stories.  They are the pillars that you can build your tales upon.  Sure, we could allow more dramatic and quick acting changes (coding/building questions aside), but this would mean that when we leave Crackageddon for a brief sojourn and return months or even years later it would not be the same game.  To me there is something comforting in that.  Does this mean we should not allow any dramatic changes to the gameworld?  Absolutely not.  We should allow ANYTHING to happen, however, if it IS something dramatic (taking out a House or similar) the plot involved should be so far fetching and involve such huge casts of PCs that the HOW it happened would not be a mystery to anyone.  Amos the assassin/weaponcrafter didn't decide one day Salarr was total crap and go around backstabbing every PC/NPC he could find until the House died out.  Instead there would be many many stories about what was done IN GAME to make it happen.

[Drayab]

I'd like to think folks that are putting together families are doing it because they want to roleplay what a Zalanthan family is like.

Would a Zalanthan family work together? I would say "sometimes".

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Family roleplay is an area that has not been explored much. There isn't public documentation on the subject, so it's largely up to players to imagine what it would be like. There is a huge realm of possibilities to be explored there, which is why it seems super lame to use a family concept as a way to skirt OOC organization restrictions.

[jstorrie]

When you title something 'a modest proposal,' you're presenting it as satire...

[Reiloth]

Here are a series of statements:

Plots that are OOCly communicated are not better than plots generated entirely IG. In fact, communication OOC -will- ruin plots IG, without a doubt. I have been here for eight years, and have both participated in this and seen it happen. It sucks.

All roles I have played that started with even a modest skill bump were not nearly as fun as the characters I started from the ground up. (As per the idea of karma equalling any sort of skill boost).

I earned every point of Karma I have; it was not given to me because I asked.

Armageddon is a harsh MUD with no freebies or short-cuts.

Barzalene's recent family post should be stickied, as it was probably the most fundamental Family Posting by the book.

In short, I do not think this modest proposal for OOC coordination has a solid enough argument. Encouraging any sort of OOC communication will lead to far too many holes in the dam. Plots generated IC, Family  found through the GDB after approving a concept through the Staff. That is all.

[boog]

I have rarely found OOC communications to be beneficial in any roleplay game I have ever played. Other than coordinating times online in clan forums, I feel that any OOC communication I have with anyone in regards to this game or any seriously takes away from its mystique.

I like randomly being involved with plots. I like randomly interacting with people. I like the random that comes with the mystery of not knowing if X character is gonna gut/maim/whatever your PC, or love them to death, use them, abuse them, whateva.

I don't understand really, other than coordinating clans and the odd and small group of players (player announcements), what the draw to OOCly interacting in this game is. If you need to communicate with someone over AIM that some fine Kadian merchant just waltzed around in your turf with all their silks and jewels on and not a guard in sight to own them, then it's quite sad that you feel you need a leg up in a -game-.

[Spice Spice Baby]

Would a Zalanthan family work together? I would say "sometimes".

As someone who's done the family member thing a time or three, I would just like to state for the record that these roles are often more fun when the family members do not work together or actively hate each other.

[Malifaxis]

Would a Zalanthan family work together? I would say "sometimes".

As someone who's done the family member thing a time or three, I would just like to state for the record that these roles are often more fun when the family members do not work together or actively hate each other.

Oh ShaLeah... where have you gone.  So much fun, the silver triplets.

[Cindy42]

.... I like Nyr. I like all the staff, actually. And I feel bad when I die, because it means work for them.

Anyway... this thread is kind of inspiring, and I'd enjoy seeing more IC group-making besides [IC group redacted by Nyr]. Seeing more small non city-state based clans which spend most of their time hopping between settled populations for work sounds fun, as their lack of protection makes excellent plot tools and fodder for templars and any PCs watching. I see nothing wrong with the current system that a little imagination or a Focus couldn't fix. Being a non-karmic myself, I miss out on the opportunity to see small-timer gangs and groups in the deserts duking it out without God-king protection and would really enjoy seeing random merchant or assassin groups popping up, possibly racially or birthplace based, and a member or leader of one getting into a drunken brawl with the leader of another, or Tek help us, a highly-respected member of Kurac, who at the time has greatly pleased a 'naki templar, thus constraining said small group's relations with the 'nak city-state as a whole... I feel almost like I'm preparing to eat at a steak-house at the thought of it.

[Xeran Van Houten]

Probably not a good idea to mention current IC groups that arn't the actual coded clans...

But yeah, it's not hard to make a group IC - finding trustworthy people to run it with you is a grand adventure itself.

[Semper]

.... I like Nyr. I like all the staff, actually. And I feel bad when I die, because it means work for them.

Anyway... this thread is kind of inspiring, and I'd enjoy seeing more IC group-making besides. Seeing more small non city-state based clans which spend most of their time hopping between settled populations for work sounds fun, as their lack of protection makes excellent plot tools and fodder for templars and any PCs watching. I see nothing wrong with the current system that a little imagination or a Focus couldn't fix. Being a non-karmic myself, I miss out on the opportunity to see small-timer gangs and groups in the deserts duking it out without God-king protection and would really enjoy seeing random merchant or assassin groups popping up, possibly racially or birthplace based, and a member or leader of one getting into a drunken brawl with the leader of another, or Tek help us, a highly-respected member of Kurac, who at the time has greatly pleased a 'naki templar, thus constraining said small group's relations with the 'nak city-state as a whole... I feel almost like I'm preparing to eat at a steak-house at the thought of it.

Sounds like you can write a story now...  
You say you're inspired? Make it work! There's several opportunities available to players without having to bend or even come close to the restrictions set in place. And even then, you can probably bring it up to the staff for consideration if it's particularly awesome.

[HammerofJericho]

I still vote on having the Who C command put back in. That's along the lines of OOC Communication isn't it?

[HavokBlue]

I still vote on having the Who C command put back in. That's along the lines of OOC Communication isn't it?

Except most people would log in, WHO C, see nobody online in their clan, and log off.