Policy Discussion: 2011

[Semper]

Now and then, some post or comment strikes a cord in me that gets me searching through older threads about the policies that are in place for Arm 1. I think it's beneficial for both players and staff to review some of this periodically, and discuss it from a players perspective (with staff feedback hopefully), even if it does seem like the same old arguments keep cropping up. (Perhaps it's more relevant -because- the same arguments keep resurfacing.) I'll mention beforehand that I know there are similar posts like this somewhere in the GDB, but I wasn't able to pinpoint them. Some of them I might even have started, but it's worth taking another look at I believe, in light of new insight that I've gained as a player, as well as old and new policies that have been added and the impacts these have had on the game since.

Here are two quotes from this thread that brought up the subject for me in the first place. I've bolded the portions that I wanted to focus on in particular.

All bickering and snark-tossing aside...  I can't help but feel that I agree with some of the sentiment floating around on the GDB about restrictive policies.  This OOC Coordination policy I honestly could care less about, it seems relatively minor.  It's the greater topic of restrictive policies that concerns me.  Equally concerning is the defensive attitude that the public facing members of the staff seem to take whenever people challenge the status quo by suggesting a change.

After a few years away, I come back and find Armageddon has changed.

   * No new clans or organizations can be officially formed.
   * Slave roles are no longer available.  If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
   * Some cool organizations are gone.  I'd elaborate more, but it may be viewed as IC sensitive.
   * Every sponsered role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.
   * The overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artifically capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.  

The list goes on and on.  And to me, it's a real shame. One of the beauties of a MUD is that it's small enough to be monitored closely for abuse, and simple enough to be modified and changed with relative ease versus something that has a graphical component.  These policies don't seem to be embracing the strengths of a MUD.

I can tell that each of these decisions were made with care, and were implemented with the absolute best of intentions at reducing abuse or making things easier on staff.  I don't doubt that each change had good reasons behind it.  I just wonder if the cure is worse than the disease.  I wonder if padding the sharp corners of the playground that is Zalanthas ends up making the playground less fun as a result.  It might cut down on whining from those who occasionally get snagged by these 'sharp corners', but in my experience the only time people stop whining about a game is when they no longer play it.

I mostly like the way things are now. Certain things that happened years ago that don't happen now struck me as fucktarded, so I'm glad for those changes. Having free reign in a clan as a leader is pretty cool too. But like anyone, I have a few gripes of my own.

First, systematically here, things seem to take a little longer to boil on the large-scale without staff animated NPCs urging quests to happen. Sometimes I wish more blatant things would happen just to keep things moving. Then again, it's sort of a two-way street, which leads to my next little gripe...

I'm ever a proponent of Keeping It Real with a character and not being a 'tard just for the sake of a little excitement, but it seems to me that IG the status quo is god. Due to how long it can take to get serious things going, I think that many players are hesitant to endanger their plots or their characters. Then again, some characters strike me as being powerful just for the sake of it, or to keep walking in place. You combine this with the staff's hesitancy to provide a really firm nudge into excitement, and yeah, things can sometimes feel staid. Some of this could be a matter of perception, though, because often super-plots need to be super-sekret, so take that for what it's worth. Still, time and time again, I feel like I've seen so many powerful PCs just maintaining formation. But yeah, hard to blame people considering their playing someone realistically, and all this time has been put into it.

Which brings me to my other relatively little gripe: the grind. The grind has outright killed at least one of my good characters, that is, they became utterly unfun to play. Now, this can be mitigated by doing a spec app, sure, but that requires a damn good concept with a damn good reason for being in the game. Still, I don't like the idea of anyone (including myself) with a chunk of karma getting to just jump in the game as a moderately-skilled (make that super-skilled, in relation to the dozens of other noobs) warrior/assassin/Krathi/whatever. Then again, sometimes I do get a little wistful thinking what it may be like to jump immediately into an old, survivable desert wanderer, or into a mage THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE A MAGE at the start of play. But I tend to view this gripe as more of a personal feeling towards the game than the game's fault. It's really a matter of my own patience, but judging by the amount of people bemoaning, I suppose it's a real issue for the playerbase.

From this, what I wanted to focus on in this thread was the perceived difficulty and resulting stagnation that players seem to have when playing the game. There are a couple major factors that contribute to this, being:

The perceived restrictiveness of current policies on players and the general impact (positive or negative) these policies have on the game.
==> As wizturbo noted:
    * No new clans or organizations can be officially formed.
   * Slave roles are no longer available.  If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
   * Some cool organizations are gone.  [possible imbalance in representation of IG organizations as a result]
   * Every sponsored role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.
   * The overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artificially capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.

==> Individually, I'm sure each had good reasons why the staff put the policies in place (or through certain decisions, it's turned out in the perceived manner) but as a whole, I'd argue that it makes for an almost suffocating environment to play in. Sure, there are plenty of things that players can do despite these, but perhaps we can figure out a way to decrease the amount of hard-set restrictions in favor of more general (yet effective) policies that can take the constraining feel out of them.

The difficulty of getting large-scale plots up and running, and maintaining them as PCs.
==> Another factor that I believe has been contributing to a general constrictive feel has been the difficulty of getting larger plots started, or the relative lack of broad, world-spanning plots that PCs can jump into. I know for certain there are many active plots that effect the game world currently, but they don't seem to tie in with each other (and the world) in a way, and if they do appear to tie into the broader spectrum, they seem almost forced. I think this has a large part to do with the current player-driven focus in plots (rather than a staff-driven one). It's already been argued that the player-driven focus has certainly been better in various ways to the previous staff-driven focus, but I still think that there is room for improvement in how it is handled by staff. Without a general overview and the lack of input from on high, the plots that start from the ground up are almost impossible to converge with a general theme. A result of the shift in focus has been a web of plots with no center or context with the broader picture. And if leaders want to try tie everything together into plots that fit, it's nearly impossible without having the knowledge that is accessible to staff.

==> I'll conclude with this one example. In both Allanak and Tuluk, there's been some major shifts in the environment since the player-driven HRPT that spawned it. In the aftermath, it's generated a lot of plots, and a lot of things have happened to affect the game since then. Yet, as much as players are involved in these plots, the higher ups (Muk Utep and Tektolnes, Black Robes, High Templars, and overall House reactions) seem desperately lacking. What kinds of reactions are they having, what kinds of decisions are being made in Senate meetings, what kind of reactions are city-states having to famine?

All these questions have to be considered when a leader PC wants to decide which plot to focus on, but due to the relative lack of power/influence that they have (PC Nobles and Templars start from the bottom of their House/Templarate, as well as merchant family members) and the lack of scope, what plots they do wish to start seem almost forced, and so minuscule in effect compared with the kinds of reactions that would REALLY be happening. It's like a stone being expected to create a wave on a lake. Sure it'll make a splash, and smaller ripples, but without guidance from a more powerful source (a boat's motor, let's say) there's only so much that stones (even together) can do to a lake.

Together, these two subjects can probably generate their own threads, but for now, I wanted to hear if players (and staff) had any thoughts.

[Semper]

Off the bat, I can already think of one possible solution for the apparent stagnation. I'm sure there are many arguments for and against it that can be made.

It's based from this argument that I'm sure the staff will probably mention (or has in the past): A lot of things that are not possible in Arm 1 will be possible in Arm 2.

If that's the case, I say let's stir the waters a bit by test-running some features that can be used with Arm 2 NOW, in Arm 1, instead of later. Instead of PCs being restricted to a cap, and advancement in their House or organization being near impossible (or take several RL years), let advancement be much easier, and thrust PC leaders into responsibilities that will allow them to rise in rank much quicker, (or die/fail much easier). Put more tools into the hands of players to use, and give tools to higher karma (and staff sponsored) players that will empower them to make waves instead of small ripples.

[added] The situation IG is much more dire. I'm almost certain newer leader characters will have a much greater opportunity now IG than before, and have the chance to rise much quicker through the ranks and gain influence than before. Let's make use of that.

[Marauder Moe]

Personally, I don't see this "stagnation" people are griping about.  In the last year or so the world has undergone some pretty significant changes.

Furthermore, people keep bringing up restrictive policy changes with absolutely no regard for their context.  The staff didn't implement them because they're lazy and want to do less work.  They did it as part of a fairly dramatic shift in how they facilitate our play.  They've been spending much more time on player-spawned and player-driven plots.  They've been spending time on low-level animations and interactions.  They've been supporting small, frequent, player-scheduled RPTs.  They've been trying to keep things fun and dynamic for everyone, rather than disproportionately catering to a small few (slaves, overly niche/isolated clans, senior-level nobles/templars).

Some of us have lost areas/concepts that we like to play in, sure.  However, I think just about all of us have experienced a corresponding increase in support for player-driven plots.

The problem is that the staff have been doing this for years, and they're adept at influencing the world with an invisible hand.  As the computer-god-galaxy from Futurama said, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

[Nyr]

If I seem less than verbose, it's because we had a discussion about this sort of thing not a few months ago; I'll be linking and quoting heavily.

From this, what I wanted to focus on in this thread was the perceived difficulty and resulting stagnation that players seem to have when playing the game. There are a couple major factors that contribute to this, being:

The perceived restrictiveness of current policies on players and the general impact (positive or negative) these policies have on the game. As wizturbo noted:
==> * No new clans or organizations can be officially formed.

It is bandied about a lot, but it isn't really true.

This has (more or less) always meant "no new clans," and if there was a review between the original post in 2004 and the quoted post referring to an earlier post in 2008, it doesn't really matter at this point in time.  We've created some occasional new clans to fill gaps, and closed some occasional clans due to them either not fitting in the game world or to open room for another clan.  There were no city-elf clans that were accessible to all manner of mundane PCs; we added two of those (thanks to Shaloonsh).  The Council was created and dissolved with IC actions.  The "expansion division" (awesome though it was) was created and dissolved IC and wasn't its own clan, it was within another clan.  The Atrium was created before this, and is "closed" now because it's, ah, closed.  The Haruch Kemad was something something IC.  Halflings were something something IC.  House Nenyuk is closed for OOC reasons.

Feel free to make new clans, but there's no guarantee that we'll support it with coded stuff or a forum (and more than likely, we probably will not).

    * Slave roles are no longer available.  If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.

Unless there's a call for a sponsored slave role, yes.

    * Some cool organizations are gone.  [possible imbalance in representation of IG organizations as a result]

Some cool organizations are here.  What is the point to this one?

    * Every sponsored role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.

I don't know that this is altogether true, but...I also don't know what sort of response could be expected on this; it's just a nostalgic opinion.

    * The overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artificially capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.
==> Individually, I'm sure each had good reasons why the staff put the policies in place (or through certain decisions, it's turned out in the perceived manner) but as a whole, I'd argue that it makes for an almost suffocating environment to play in. Sure, there are plenty of things that players can do despite these, but perhaps we can figure out a way to decrease the amount of hard-set restrictions in favor of more general (yet effective) policies that can take the constraining feel out of them.

Discussed here and later in that same thread a few months ago; what more do you wish to bring to the table?  For reference, here's the major points I made then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If someone does enough to threaten a city

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

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

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

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

The difficulty of getting large-scale plots up and running, and maintaining them as PCs.
==> Another factor that I believe has been contributing to a general constrictive feel has been the difficulty of getting larger plots started, or the relative lack of broad, world-spanning plots that PCs can jump into. I know for certain there are many active plots that effect the game world currently, but they don't seem to tie in with each other (and the world) in a way, and if they do appear to tie into the broader spectrum, they seem almost forced. I think this has a large part to do with the current player-driven focus in plots (rather than a staff-driven one). It's already been argued that the player-driven focus has certainly been better in various ways to the previous staff-driven focus, but I still think that there is room for improvement in how it is handled by staff. Without a general overview and the lack of input from on high, the plots that start from the ground up are almost impossible to converge with a general theme. A result of the shift in focus has been a web of plots with no center or context with the broader picture. And if leaders want to try tie everything together into plots that fit, it's nearly impossible without having the knowledge that is accessible to staff.

So what do you suggest?  What is your beef here?  I don't get it, I'm sorry.

==> I'll conclude with this one example. In both Allanak and Tuluk, there's been some major shifts in the environment since the player-driven HRPT that spawned it. In the aftermath, it's generated a lot of plots, and a lot of things have happened to affect the game since then. Yet, as much as players are involved in these plots, the higher ups (Muk Utep and Tektolnes, Black Robes, High Templars, and overall House reactions) seem desperately lacking. What kinds of reactions are they having, what kinds of decisions are being made in Senate meetings, what kind of reactions are city-states having to famine?

They're having those reactions.  How would you like these reactions manifested?  What are you suggesting?

All these questions have to be considered when a leader PC wants to decide which plot to focus on, but due to the relative lack of power/influence that they have (PC Nobles and Templars start from the bottom of their House/Templarate, as well as merchant family members) and the lack of scope, what plots they do wish to start seem almost forced, and so minuscule in effect compared with the kinds of reactions that would REALLY be happening. It's like a stone being expected to create a wave on a lake. Sure it'll make a splash, and smaller ripples, but without guidance from a more powerful source (a boat's motor, let's say) there's only so much that stones (even together) can do to a lake.

If you feel that way, then you feel that way.  I'd disagree that sponsored leaders are as weak as you say they are, or even player leaders that grow into the role.

[Semper]

Thanks for the reply so soon, Nyr. Don't get me wrong, I wanted (and even asked) for staff input. I think getting some more player input might clear up some of the concerns that I had though. If I'm the only one that hold these views, so much the better that I learn and understand that after reading what the other players have to say. I know not everyone will agree, and people will have different views depending on what perspective they're coming from. For example, I know many newer players and those not often in leader roles [and even those currently in those roles] may not have the same views as I do presently.

I'll hope to reply and elaborate a bit more on the points you've made. I think the mix-up was my lack of detail in explaining the points written. It's not so much the specifics I mention that I wanted to focus on, but the broader picture.

The examples I used might be made clearer when I mentioned this:

Individually, I'm sure each had good reasons why the staff put the policies in place (or through certain decisions, it's turned out in the perceived manner) but as a whole, I'd argue that it makes for an almost suffocating environment to play in. Sure, there are plenty of things that players can do despite these, but perhaps we can figure out a way to decrease the amount of hard-set restrictions in favor of more general (yet effective) policies that can take the constraining feel out of them.

I'm not saying these policies should be removed, but I think something could be done to loosen some of the restraints placed on players while still maintaining the theme of why the policies were made in the first place, allowing players to work with it in a way that will allow the greatest enjoyment for players considering the work staff has to put in to the effort. Maybe this is just a personal hope? If neither staff nor player feels similarly, you can disregard this part this from the post.

So what do you suggest?  What is your beef here?  I don't get it, I'm sorry.

==> I'll conclude with this one example. In both Allanak and Tuluk, there's been some major shifts in the environment since the player-driven HRPT that spawned it. In the aftermath, it's generated a lot of plots, and a lot of things have happened to affect the game since then. Yet, as much as players are involved in these plots, the higher ups (Muk Utep and Tektolnes, Black Robes, High Templars, and overall House reactions) seem desperately lacking. What kinds of reactions are they having, what kinds of decisions are being made in Senate meetings, what kind of reactions are city-states having to famine?

They're having those reactions.  How would you like these reactions manifested?  What are you suggesting?

That's the thing. How do PCs know what those reactions are, and what are the visible manifestations of that in the city/game? Two farms have been destroyed, has there been a Senate meeting in Allanak that discussed what to do about it? What does the Templarate/Nobility feel about a new mountain spawned next to the city, and have they done anything about it? How does the PCs fit into those larger schemes? The reactions might trickle down from on high, but from what I've seen, nothing of the sort has happened. I might also include the situation in Tuluk or other parts of the world, but I don't have enough IG knowledge to make a relevant point on those.

[Nyr]

I'm not saying these policies should be removed, but I think something could be done to loosen some of the restraints placed on players while still maintaining the theme of why the policies were made in the first place, allowing players to work with it in a way that will allow the greatest enjoyment for players considering the work staff has to put in to the effort. Maybe this is just a personal hope? If neither staff nor player feels similarly, you can disregard part this from the post.

A majority of players do not come close to this at all, though.  When they get there they can approach staff about what to do.

That's the thing. How do PCs know what those reactions are, and what are the visible manifestations of that in the city/game? Two farms have been destroyed, has there been a Senate meeting in Allanak that discussed what to do about it? What does the Templarate/Nobility feel about a new mountain spawned next to the city, and have they done anything about it? How does the PCs fit into those larger schemes? The reactions might trickle down from on high, but from what I've seen, nothing of the sort has happened. I might also include the situation in Tuluk or other parts of the world, but I don't have enough IG knowledge to make a relevant point on those.

Should all reactions be available to all PCs without them asking for it?  A lot of rumors are posted on the IC boards, and not all of them are posted by players.  Should every PC know about a Senate meeting?  Sure, the Senate keeps meeting virtually, so if you are curious and it is pertinent to your own role, why not ask?  It is possible, though, that the Senate doesn't give a rat's ass because they're selfish and insulated from calamity, like politicians from real life.  Why not ask the templarate or nobility in-game?   You can at least ask the PCs.  You can put in a request.  You can wish up for an animation if it's pertinent to the situation.  As for how PCs fit into these larger schemes, ask yourself that question if it applies to you, and then work with it.  It's the same thing I do with my own characters now.  If stuff affects my PC, my PC has an opinion on it and will act if necessary, pestering whomever to get goals accomplished (if I've set goals) or to destroy someone else's plans (if they have them and I want to do so).  Whatever role you have, your reactions to the world are important, for they can set off other reactions.

For an Allanaki commoner in the period right after the gith war:  How does this affect me?  Well, I hate gith now for what they did to my city.  I want to go train up to hunt down the rest of those bastards.  I also think it's a good opportunity to flex some muscle and start an indie information-gathering empire--there's a lot of turmoil and I think in the confusion I can probably make some good deals.

For a Tuluki noble right after the occupation began:  How does this affect me?  Dirty fucking southerners, all of them.  I'll get some people gathered around me to do my bidding and then I'll have them silently kill a few occupation aides--not leaders, you know, because that would be obvious.  Go for the throat of the second-in-command.  Also, my ass chafes in this sandcloth, I'd love some silks.  I'll have someone steal some for me.

[wizturbo]

If I seem less than verbose, it's because we had a discussion about this sort of thing not a few months ago; I'll be linking and quoting heavily.

(Lots of linking and stuff to follow)

When I posted that list my intention was not to discuss each bullet point.  It was more along the lines of creating data points for a graph to show a trend of restrictive policy changes.  These restrictive policies were put in place with the best intentions, but I'm not sure they're playing to the strength of a MUD environment, nor are they fostering a fun and creative atmosphere for players.

As an example (and this is just an example, I don't really want to debate it as a separate topic):

"...an excessive amount of changes to playing style that most players wouldn't subject themselves to (GMH Heads aren't scary if they show up at the Retreat every day to drink with their buddies).  At that point, we usually will engage in dialogue with the player about storage and their PC turning NPC/vNPC as part of the clan.  This has been done several times."

The policy change was obviously made with the best intentions.  Few would argue that having a senior noble sitting around at the Red's drinking with their buddies is appropriate.  But at the same time, by making them an NPC/vNPC you've eliminated the existence of such people from the game world (i.e. we never see Red Robes or Senior Nobles anymore), and taking the carrot away from leaders to be ambitious and try and become one.  Some of the terminology players OOCly use to describe eras within the game world "the Amos days..." are pointing to senior templar and nobles roles, there's probably a reason for that. 

To me, this is just one example of how putting even a perfectly reasonable restriction in place is also taking away some of the awe and energy from the game.  With enough changes like this, stacked up together, I think the atmosphere of Armageddon is adversely affected. 

[Drayab]

I'm pretty happy with the current set of policies. The only one I'd like to see changed is the slave role restrictions. I think I'd make a pretty good slave.

The problem is PC slaves kept running away or storing, right? It was making too much work for staff, and people were doing stupid stuff with their slaves. In the old days, I had one character that was enslaved. After it happened, I carried on for about three or four more weeks, and then I got bored. The character ended with about fifty days played total, and maybe five of those as a slave. I feel bad about it in retrospect, because it wasn't long after that the slave restrictions came along. From that experience I can say that being enslaved is a huge life changing experience for a PC, and it makes perfect sense that a PC not born into slavery is likely to make a run for it, especially if they are a person accustomed to making their own rules and going where they wish. Also, there never were many slaves around to begin with, and so I think a lot of players are not sure how their commoner ought to treat the slave PC. Basically, I think my character got treated by almost everyone as an unskilled labor slave when in fact they were nothing of the sort.

Maybe it would work if the players of appropriate PCs were allowed to recruit slave roles on the Player Announcements forum? Maybe they'd have to put in a request to recruit a slave first? If done this way, we can be sure that the player of the slave is keen on trying to role, and also the PC can be crafted as a slave from birth so that they are properly indoctrinated into their role in society, and so there would not be a good IC reason to make a run for it.

[valeria]

The problem with any voluntary polling is that you're not usually going to get the view of the middle, you're usually only going to get responses that are on one end of the spectrum or the other (totally dissatisfied or totally satisfied, and willing to tell you why.)

I'm pretty happy with the current set of staff policies, but I really wasn't until recently.  Most of the past couple months, I have been having a very positive experience in the game.  I will share some things that have helped me get there, from the moderately negative attitude I had about nine months to a year ago.

• I started focusing on the things I can do and want to do, rather than the things I can't do but want to do anyway.
• I started being really open and truthful in my communication with staff.  I started telling them if something was bothering me about my character's situation and why.  This went against the advice of some GDB feelings and some of the people I was OOCly talking to about nonspecific stuff at the time when I was dissatisfied.  They said doing this would lead to being perceived as a whiner, being disfavored, having staff know about what you're trying to do and working against you, etc etc.  I have found this to be exactly the opposite of true.
• In terms of anything plotty I wanted to do, I made sure the staff knew about it far, far in advance, and tried not to get butthurt if they told me that my idea wasn't feasible given the current IC or OOC environment.  I stopped letting myself get really vested in ideas and concepts that I personally thought were really cool BEFORE getting them approved, and switched the excitement/planning stage to AFTER an idea had been approved.
• I started being realistic about my expectations of both 1) the amount of work I need to put in to get anything reflected in the game world, and 2) the amount of work staff would have to put in to support what I want to have reflected in the game world, and started adjusting my expectations of what is really feasible accordingly.
• I cut off most OOC communication with most people except for chatting with some people from time to time about non-Armageddon related things.  ZOMG there's a lot of negative energy out there just waiting to upset your chi if you let it.  For every negative perspective I got on something, I tried to separate the opinion from the facts, and look at the facts objectively.  Usually this led me to believe that stuff in these stories must be getting left out.  I compared this to how people operate when telling stories in the real world and realized that basing my perspective off of just one side of someone's story is stupid.
• I started thinking more realistically about the game world and about what my PC would know.  Who is she, that she would know what the higher ups in society and in the game world are thinking?  Is one person really going to be able to overturn X system that has been in places for ### years?  How important is my Jane PC anyway?  Adjusted expectations accordingly.
• I decided to treat the staff like rational people deserving of the benefit of the doubt on the policies.  I realized that rational people don't usually make policies for no good reason.  I remembered that the staff has access to a lot more information about stuff going on both with players and in the game world that I don't.  Then I went back to my first point.
  

[Only He Stands There]

I wholly agree with valeria, and all of her points are fantastic. A number of them are how I've been handling myself in game for a while now, and I absolutely love it.

That said, I have one major qualm with the current policies, and it's the only actual problem that I really have with the game. Everything else I can get behind, I can understand, and even if I don't like it, I understand just how and why those policies are in effect. But in short...

Forced storage sucks.

In 99.9% of cases, there's a more or interesting solution to a PC being forcibly stored. There're a handful of reasons that, as I understand it, will cause a PC to get forcibly stored.

Inactivity.
I understand that when someone's in a position of leadership and they go AWOL for 3 weeks, someone needs to be brought in that is more active. It sucks for whoever's playing the PC, but forcibly storing them without giving them the option to later unstore is a just bad juju, and breeds resentment. Can I think of any solution to this kind of issue that's not as effective? No.

Being Enslaved.
If a player is enslaved, I believe they should have a choice. If they find the slavery to be entirely too boring to them, then let them store, just like anyone would do if they joined Clan XYZ with no people in it at their time of play and grew bored, or if they had a magicker they were playing that they just lost interest in. The players themselves - both enslaver and slave - should understand the consequences of doing so, and that a slave PC will likely have a lot of downtime and boredom. If one noble PC owns a slave and is inattentive to them, unable to provide even some basic interaction, their superiors should have them sell it to another PC who -could- take care of such. Barring all that, a 'slave area' such as the Allanaki mines or the cotton fields of Tuluk, with the addition of a bunkhouse and some basic supplies, would make a great place for slave PCs to be left to their own devices amongst one another. (read: interaction)

Getting "Too Powerful"
I understand that ever notch higher on the totem pole a PC climbs, it creates more of a workload for the staff to cater to them. My question is: why? In most cases, if a player is playing an Agent due for advancement to Senior Agent, they've done plenty to earn it both ICly and OOCly -- and in such a situation, they should know precisely what kind of plots and works they should be pursuing, and what kind they shouldn't.

In the past, it's my understanding that Senior Agents, High/Red Templars, superpowerful IC Something magickers/defilers and the like have been stored because one, there's no real counterbalance to them in the game, and two, it's hard for the staff to find reasons to decline their movements/plots/ideas/etc.

For number one: good. They're powerful. That's how Armageddon is--it's harsh. A noble's orders taking forever because he pissed off the now-head of the Southern Branch of Kadius back when she was just a junior merchant reeks of Armageddon to me. A High Jihaen Templar taking issue with your lowly elf and picking on them incessantly, behind closed doors, is entirely Armageddon to me. A Red Robe pitting his two Blue Robe underlings against one another in tasks is just about as Armageddon as it comes.

For number two: Most players who get into those positions of power should be adult and mature enough to understand that staff holds the final say. They should be able to stomach the staff replying in an email, "No, you can't settle a new merchant colony deep in the Canyons of Waste, despite having the authority, power, and resources to do so, because it's a lot of work for no real return on our part, and would only further split the playerbase." Or, "no, a new tavern in Tuluk is not something your High Templar should fund, because we as staff don't think it's a very good idea to introduce." And if all else fails, and they still pursue? Just set it up for failure. That's more fun than being told no or being stored long before you get to that point.

Gross Ignorance of the Docs.
Tuluki nobles boffing commoners. Kadians going into the 'Rinth regularly without very good reasoning. Militia PCs killing off NPCs because of their crimcode immunity. There's a better solution than force-storage: kill them. Kill them with their NPC bosses. Hire PCs to kill them. Get rumours out about how they died. Force-storage is so inconclusive and lame. Death is satisfying and closes that door forever.

[Nyr]

Inactivity storage -- we do ask first, usually.  We can't kill a leader PC who doesn't log in (and won't).  If they're not playing, they're not playing, so we can't wait on them forever to reply to our questioning before the storage does have to happen.  Giving them the option to later unstore?  That's between them and their staff.  I don't support anything to make that a policy; it is a case-by-case sort of thing as it is now.

Slavery policy -- It's been debated by staff and not lightly.  It may not be perfect the way it is, but it is what it is, for now.  I can understand why some people would want it, though.

Getting too powerful -- Yeah, the upward mobility at the extreme end (read: long-lived and decent characters) of some sponsored roles is a suck, and we realize that, but the alternative is also a suck.  Both of your points about how we could deal with this situation point to "just let it happen," and we've done that before...that's how we got here.  I don't think we've force-stored super-powerful IC something-or-others, at least not for that reason.

Gross ignorance of the docs -- I have stored Tuluki nobles for boffing commoners.  The very specific situation in question was such that it was definitely appropriate to do that, not just for IC reasons but for OOC reasons.  Inconclusive and lame, sure, I'll buy that.  However, I wouldn't store a Kadian going off to the 'rinth.  I wouldn't think I'd store a militia PC killing NPCs.  Dealing with some things IC seems appropriate.  Dealing with others is not.  I would not support anything to make this a policy; a lot of it is case-by-case determination.

Over the past year, the forced storages we've done have been few and far between.  

[Jdr]

Inactivity storage -- we do ask first, usually.

I must have been outside that usually range.

Giving them the option to later unstore?  That's between them and their staff.

Interesting!

[Nyr]

Inactivity storage -- we do ask first, usually.

I must have been outside that usually range.

Giving them the option to later unstore?  That's between them and their staff.

Interesting!

Yes, your situation was outside of that "usually" range as indicated by the e-mail sent at the time.

[Bebop]

I don't really like to "get in the muck" these days on the GDB but I politely wanted to offer some suggestions because plotlines (to me) are the most engaging/addicting/entertaining part of the game and then I'll step away again.

1) Suggestion - Incubate

Give plotlines a chance to develop.  Don't focus heavily on PK, take your licks, and play out your character.  Make skills inconsequential and level them up as opportunities come, which they will.  I'm not saying skills are unimportant, I'm just saying get in there and RP, be your character and the skills will come.  Don't worry about the grind.  I am the sort that I'd rather have an interesting and engaging character than live forever.  Should your character try to survive?  Undoubtedly, but don't be afraid to get in there and start plotlines.  Roleplay out your character's weaknesses and don't be afraid to engage other players.  Instead of looking at someone and saying to yourself oh that's a breed or a gemmed, I shouldn't talk to them, don't just ignore them interact.  Take the opportunity to turn your nose up or find someone way to make a profit off of them.  Exploit other's to your advantage socially and politically.  I encourage everyone to put combat on the back burner, because I assure you - you do not have to have combat abilities to do something extremely harsh, memorable or badass.

2) Gross Ignorance of the Documentation

As far as the ignorance of the documentation I will concede that lately I have seen an upswing of this as well as some manipulation of the game codedly.  I am pretty sure that is because we have seen an increase of new players while many senior players have drifted off.  I encourage everyone to read the documentation and don't think of things in terms of can I do this codedly?  Think:  how can I do this realistically, and how can I use the code to convey the realism.  I know it's cliche but be the change you want to see.  Send people kudos when you feel they've done something right to encourage them to keep it up.  I have been playing almost six years now, and I only just recently would consider myself not a newbie.  The learning curve on this game is steep.  Likewise, if you truly feel a character is doing something that isn't legit you can always send a complaint.  If some one makes an errant IG decision make them pay for it IG.  Again though, incubate and if you make them pay - execute that payback right if you can.

One thing I would like to take the time to say is:  Please use proper capitalization and punctuation in your emotes.  There is nothing more immersion breaking then seeing someone type up what they are doing or saying like they're in a chatroom.  I'm not saying you have to have perfect spelling or even use conventional grammar to convey what you're saying but please at least capitalize and punctuate your sentences.

3) Leadership

I have said this before and I will say this again - please do not take a leadership position if you are not on regularly.  Breaks are understandable, I am talking the majority of the time.  Even a poor leader, that tries and is on regularly is better than no leader at all.  Leaders are very important to maintain plots and the flow of the game by giving people employment and interaction options.  I have seen a lack of IG leadership in game right now, and I think it is contributing to the stagnation of plotlines.  Even if it's just a Kadian being available to buy a gift for a friend, or a Salarri to get a job from a or a Byn Sergeant to hire a bunch of folks and have their unit fill up a tavern on a Detal, a good leader is so important in encouraging others to log in and begin engaging one another.  I know the IMMs have had a bunch of ads out there lately for PC leaders which is why I am directing this to the players and not the IMMs.  Get out there and engage one another.  Also, don't be afraid to play a leader with their own set of weaknesses.  Being a leader does not mean you have to be flawless.  A good leader to me is just active and willing to engage others.

4) Imms Running Plots

As far as IMMs running plots I love this too but they really can't be expected to do city changing events every week and month.  I love Imm interaction myself but you have to also remember that sometimes people do not actually want this.  What they really mean is - hey staff - run MY plots.  And then when they don't get just what they want out of the interaction they get pissy and accuse them of vandalizing their situation.  (I used to be among these ranks unfortunately.)  However, I have come to enjoy utter lack of control in my character and random events, even unfortunate ones because I think it's important to appreciate that part of the game.  Part of life is not having control over all circumstances, the same way you have random encounters in D and D.  While some people enjoy some encounters others rage about them.  Really everything can not be expected out of the IMMs which is why I really encourage people to be the change they want to see and try to rely on the IMMs as little as possible.  When you take personal accountability and creative license over your IG situation amazing things can happen.

5) Slavery

Slavery is really not that big of a deal.  The IMMs have said that requests for slaves can still be made by Houses apparently and honestly, if you can enslave someone you can force store them because you could have killed them if you had the ability to confine them to slavery.  Slavery doesn't mean go be a sexy aide, go be a slave could mean go chip rocks all day.  Obviously, there's no way that the IMMs can turn a character over to NPC or VNPCs which is why storage comes into play.  There is a reason for this and honestly, I don't mind the rule at all.  Slavery really shouldn't be THAT big of a portion of all RP honestly, and it actually saves your characters from just being randomly enslaved here and there by higher up PCs that could just enslave people on a whim.  I remember when Borsail could take out groups and actually go out and enslave people in the desert.  Oh, bam you're enslaved.  And of course that would leave two options, keep someone confined which is basically like storing them cause they have to be locked up, or oh yeah letting them roam the city, at that point I'm sure if they don't want to be enslaved they won't just leave.    My very first character was guilty of this.  An elf grabs me, drags me to Tuluk and sells me.  What do I do?  Walk back to Nak.  There were a lot of practicality issues with the whole set up and I really don't think it's that big of a deal and haven't really been effected by the changes at all.  There weren't a lot of slaves before anyway.

Anyway, that's my piece.  *bow*

[Drayab]

If slavers go out and catch a random guy in the desert and try to make him a slave, he is not going to be a slave fit to be trusted to walk alone in the city and still come home at night. It makes IC sense for the enslaved character to try to run, and the player may not be interested in playing such a restricted role. So, this should still be tantamount to PK, and slavers should recognize it as such. In these cases, the character should still be force-stored, and it is explained as the character lives out their life in bonds, probably with a whip to make them behave.

But how about making slave roles more easy to come by? These PCs could be slaves from birth, and they could be trusted similarly to a lifesworn servant (perhaps moreso, due to their indoctrination), but their social standing would be different. Plenty of players can stick with playing a lifesworn servant for a period of time. I know I have.

We could even write up a list of slave roleplay expectations, and people who want to play a slave will be expected to read and obey it. It could be said that slaves believe in their lot in life just as strongly as the nobles believe in theirs.

[Aruven]

The only thing i really delved into here was the emphasis on PC's reaching a cap. I never liked that idea. A templar wants to go for black robe? Well shit. Do it. precentor? Fuck yeah. Glass ceilings are a turn off in the end.

Nobody in the game gets too powerful. (Okay that might be, questionable.)

But for the most part, nobody is above a good assassination. If you have an influential character that moves shit, press on. I never got sad or irritated if an e-mail said "Nah we're not... down with that." You move on and compromise or go back to the drawing board for plots. My feeling is, if you can have 8 karma characters just juicing up in the wastelands, and coming into the city-states when they're pissed and whacking off a lower-level templar or noble, there is no reason the latter two cannot be high ranking and influential.

Somebody said recently that higher level interactions seem to be severely lacking. I would agree, in a sense. The game isn't 'dull' because of it, but its a huge angle of the political RP I feel like someone just kind of sweeped under the rug. I miss seeing PC nobles and the like with some serious juice.

Disclaimer: Not beefing Just adding my two sids.

[racurtne]

Honestly, I think I would feel pretty accomplished if my PC attained such a high rank that staff decided I should store. You must have accomplished something pretty sick.

[smcdonald]

That sounds like a great goal!

[jhunter]

The only thing i really delved into here was the emphasis on PC's reaching a cap. I never liked that idea. A templar wants to go for black robe? Well shit. Do it. precentor? Fuck yeah. Glass ceilings are a turn off in the end.

I so completely agree with this. There shouldn't realistically be an end to how high a pc can rise in their organization if a higher position exists that is realistically attainable. Stopping their rise for no reason other than to prevent a pc from rising to a higher position to me seems to be a good way to kill the drive of a motivated player.

[Barzalene]

I feel grateful we had the discussion last fall about plots. I am ok with "no," but far more OK when I feel like my thoughts have at least been entertained.

OK, warning, I'm getting out my whip and that dead horse will be beaten.

I don't care if the staff comes up with plots, or picks up player plots, but the big overarching stories with attendant HRPTs, death, carnage, and fireworks a couple times a year are still on my wish list.

I get that I've gotten the answer. I'm not complaining, just lobbying.

[wizturbo]

editted...grumpy.

[Jdr]

I am okay with not rising in rank so long as everyone else PC-wise stays the same rank too (as in, they suffer the same limitations). However, it seems to be staff inclination (in my experience) to ignore the good you do and tear you a new asshole for the bad.

[Synthesis]

I think having someone like me playing a black-robe would be absolutely disastrous for the game.

[Aruven]

I think having someone like me playing a black-robe would be absolutely disastrous for the game.

Seconded.

[Marauder Moe]

Probably wouldn't be much fun for the black robe's player either.  A black robe really wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING without live staff support, save perhaps meet with underlings (red robes).

I mean, seriously, how the heck do you envision things working with them?  Supreme Lord Walik the Black strolls into the Gaj to see what's going on?  Goes out riding with the PC militia for a larf?  Meets with Junior Merchant Jilla Kadius to buy silk toilet paper?  Stops for a game of Giant's Fist on the way back?