What is the point of the game????

[ianmartin]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with
people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms
want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

Now, here's my point, is the outcome of everything already decided?  Are we just pawns in a game that we have no control over and are doomed to play our parts?
What I would like to see here is more of an environment where player A can decide he wants to burn down his apartment and whammo it gets done, OR someone deciding
he wants to open a tavern and gets the materials and the contract from templerate and gets it done.  I know the docs say and the board says you can do anything you want
in the game, but seriously, can I do anything other than sit in a tavern, rid the desert of gith or bake the ultimate sweet roll?  I am just asking and I think more than a few people
may have the same question.

Now, with that being said, even though I have probably been pissed for half, maybe 2/3 of the time I play the game, overall, I applaud the staff for what they have done and I hope
that (even though I may have a problem with it) we can continue playing this game so many of us fell in love with.

[lordcooper]

Apparently you can set fire to things in 2.Arm.

Also: le sigh.

[ianmartin]

Apparently you can set fire to things in 2.Arm.

Okay, NOW, I'm Happy

[Delirium]

can I do anything other than sit in a tavern, rid the desert of gith or bake the ultimate sweet roll?

A thousand times yes. You're limited only by the scope of your imagination, and the constraints of the gameworld.

I suppose there are a few left-field exceptions to that, but there has to be some consideration for the whole as opposed to the singular, in multiplayer games.

[Cutthroat]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with
people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms
want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

That's a matter of design. It's going to be harder to do things as a "little guy" because there are a bunch of "bigger guys" that like their status.

Now, here's my point, is the outcome of everything already decided?  Are we just pawns in a game that we have no control over and are doomed to play our parts?

No. There are myriad examples that prove the exact opposite of this in-game right now and recently (within the past year or so)

Sorry if this seems terse, but this has been talked about over and over on the forums. If you want to do something, you need to work at it. Your chances are better if...
- you're consistently RPing the process of whatever you want to do.
- you're working with other players. (in a clan, or not)
- what you're trying to add will benefit the game overall or make it more fun for players.
- you're sending regular status updates via character reports to staff.
- it will actually fit in the game world as something fairly unique, i.e. it's not going to be redundant.
- it's a constructive effort as opposed to something destructive (both are possible, but you'd have to make a strong case for removing an area or feature from the game)

[Morrolan]

Apparently you can set fire to things in 2.Arm.

As far as I understand, not only can you set fire to things in 2.ARM, you might be able to affect massive change over the long run.  Possibly including raising an army to retrieve your mate, smashing down the walls of the city that took her, and sowing their fields with salt.

Code Select Expand

> fertilize field salt

No word yet on whether you can drag a corpse behind a chariot.

Code Select Expand

> craft chariot corpse into vengeance

As always, however, such things will need to be done taking the whole game world into account, not just the PCs and NPCs.

[X-D]

Elf skin cloaks YO!

Oh wait...no elves.


Ghaatti skin cloaks YO!

[ianmartin]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with
people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms
want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

That's a matter of design. It's going to be harder to do things as a "little guy" because there are a bunch of "bigger guys" that like their status.

Now, here's my point, is the outcome of everything already decided?  Are we just pawns in a game that we have no control over and are doomed to play our parts?

No. There are myriad examples that prove the exact opposite of this in-game right now and recently (within the past year or so)

Sorry if this seems terse, but this has been talked about over and over on the forums. If you want to do something, you need to work at it. Your chances are better if...
- you're consistently RPing the process of whatever you want to do.
- you're working with other players. (in a clan, or not)
- what you're trying to add will benefit the game overall or make it more fun for players.
- you're sending regular status updates via character reports to staff.
- it will actually fit in the game world as something fairly unique, i.e. it's not going to be redundant.
- it's a constructive effort as opposed to something destructive (both are possible, but you'd have to make a strong case for removing an area or feature from the game)

Now, Cuthroat's response is exactly what I am talking about.  I do not remember (correct me if I am wrong) seeing that this is how you go about things., ie sending character reports etc.
Hell, I mean Drov, I never knew this was possible to get what you needed done.  How many ideas by other people, not just myself go by because of not knowing what to do.  If EVERYONE
knows certain things, Is it not feasible to put this into the standard docs to allow people to focus on the game rather than having to run around asking questions (that noone wants to answer)
because they want to be hard-asses ?

just my $0.02 worth and superbly answered by cuthroat.  Keep in mind, i have been around quite a bit and know some things, but some noobs may just decide to leave because it's WAY too vague
in the docs.

[HavokBlue]

I think it's safe to say that if you wish up and say "HEY I'M THROWING TORCHES AND OIL AROUND MY APARTMENT BURN IT DOWN" you are probably not going to get a response, because you're being silly.

[X-D]

Oh, I think you would, but likely not what you hoped.

Suddenly the oil catches fire and swiftly spreads burning everything in it including you...sadly for you the building and room itself are made of stone and when the oil is burned the fire goes out.

Welcome to Armageddon!

[HavokBlue]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

[Delirium]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

[Talia]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

The storage of leaders is a major drag on staff resources and definitely a huge hindrance to plots.

From my perspective, often, it seems like something good is just getting started and then BOOM, I have to spend the next month looking for and settling in an appropriate new leader. Only to turn around and do that same thing again for another clan the next month. And on and on.

Plots stutter along, at best.

Yeah. It's a big pain point for me. Probably the biggest.

[Taven]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

Cutthroat had some good advice. I just wanted to add that the world DOES change based on things players do. Relatively recently, there was a building burnt down because a PC wanted to do it. The conditions in the world were right (vNPC support), and you can bet they sent in character reports about their goals. Not everything a PC wants to do is always possible due to staff workload and the vNPC side of the world, but staff will be there to try to support things.

Handling the after effects of the HRPT in both city-states is player driven. That sort of thing normally gets handled by Templars and nobles, but you can bet there have been commoners who made contributions as well. In addition, stopping and preventing some of the "fixes" for those issues were done by PCs, as well. Obviously, I can't get into details, but there are changes happening there.

Finally, although this was before the change on how plots were handled (staff driven versus player driven), there were player efforts in the Gith War. After it a lot of people were unsure if they made any difference, or if it was all pre-scripted to happen one way, regardless of how they acted. In fact, staff came out and said that there were several versions of what could have happened, depending on where the focus was for defense.

Changing the world isn't easy, especially if you're small (you need those big guys to support you, and become more influential yourself), but it IS possible.

[Reiloth]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

The storage of leaders is a major drag on staff resources and definitely a huge hindrance to plots.

From my perspective, often, it seems like something good is just getting started and then BOOM, I have to spend the next month looking for and settling in an appropriate new leader. Only to turn around and do that same thing again for another clan the next month. And on and on.

Plots stutter along, at best.

Yeah. It's a big pain point for me. Probably the biggest.

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

Anyways -- to the OP -- No, things are not predetermined. No, you are not a pawn in the Staff's grand design. You are a very special snowflake and you can choose to do a plethora of things IG. The first step is designing a character that will not do what you consider boring (sitting in a tavern, ridding the red desert of Gith). The second is developing the character's personality to the point where you log in and -feel- like that character, in all of their mannerisms and thought processes. Then -- You truly can experience Armageddon and see it for all its beauty and brutality. If you want to burn down your apartment other than for the sake of burning it down, talk it over with the Staff. I'm sure they'll be receptive to a bit of anarchy.

[Clavis]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

The storage of leaders is a major drag on staff resources and definitely a huge hindrance to plots.

From my perspective, often, it seems like something good is just getting started and then BOOM, I have to spend the next month looking for and settling in an appropriate new leader. Only to turn around and do that same thing again for another clan the next month. And on and on.

Plots stutter along, at best.

Yeah. It's a big pain point for me. Probably the biggest.

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

Anyways -- to the OP -- No, things are not predetermined. No, you are not a pawn in the Staff's grand design. You are a very special snowflake and you can choose to do a plethora of things IG. The first step is designing a character that will not do what you consider boring (sitting in a tavern, ridding the red desert of Gith). The second is developing the character's personality to the point where you log in and -feel- like that character, in all of their mannerisms and thought processes. Then -- You truly can experience Armageddon and see it for all its beauty and brutality. If you want to burn down your apartment other than for the sake of burning it down, talk it over with the Staff. I'm sure they'll be receptive to a bit of anarchy.

yes all this.

[Talia]

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

I don't really know whether it can be fixed. I've pondered it quite a bit. Players don't often give constructive, actionable feedback on why they are storing their sponsored roles. But here are some things I've gathered both from personal experience in sponsored roles and from other players and observation, in no particular order of importance:

-- Some players just don't really like rules and structure. They don't want to write character reports, be accountable for their pkills, or have to follow rules for conducting RPTs.
-- Some players don't enjoy being responsible for facilitating the enjoyment of other players through administrative tasks and plot/quest/project leadership.
-- Some players are very focused on their own characters' skill development. This is not a good match for most sponsored leader roles, because coded skill development usually needs to be far, far down the list of things that get done.
-- Some players simply aren't good at thinking up plots/projects/quests for themselves and their clans. They are reactive rather than proactive. In the player-driven environment, this is not a good fit for a sponsored role.
-- Sometimes players don't enjoy the mostly mundane focus of sponsored leader roles. That is to say, if it ain't high magick, they ain't interested.
-- Sometimes players get lonely if there are not enough other leaders around for them to interact with. It really sucks to be only one of two nobles in your city...and the other noble doesn't play at the same time as you.
-- Some players are really mostly into adventuring. Some sponsored roles might include adventuring, but none of them is mostly about adventuring. (Byn Sergeant is the closest match here.)
-- Some players just won't put up with the crap that minions often give. Minions die, run away into the 'rinth, run off to go salting, pick fights, steal from clanmates, etc. at an astonishing rate. This can burn out player leaders.
-- Sometimes the players and staff in a particular clan configuration just don't get along.

I could probably think of more reasons, but it's late and I'm tired. Player leaders who stick to it for the long-term are very rare. Those who do a good job at it are even rarer. Most of these problems I don't think are fixable, because they're about the fact that mostly players just like doing their own thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that; it just makes the job of staff harder when players aren't fully invested in helping out too.

[number13]

All of the really good leaders end on staff and are therefore ineligible for leadership roles?  I don't know that for a fact; just a guess.

Templar is a coveted role because they get super-special goodies to go along with the massive responsibility.  My one and only (ill-fated) attempt at a Nooble left me wondering where all the goodies were. (probably in Allanak, because the grass is always greener).  There was a guard, that I couldn't do much with except use a prop.  There were some 'special' items that, with my character prior, I had stashed quite a few stacks of.  There was some money. The aforementioned prior character, without even really trying, had amassed a great deal more.  And I had the ear of staff and presumably the respect of the commoners, which isn't anything to sneeze at, but when you get down to brass tacks, I actually find it easier to get other PCs involved when I'm playing as lowly criminal scum or an outlaw weirdo.

The entire game is just props and toys, but it seems the high karma classes or even successful independent gets much cooler toys than the average sponsored role.  (with the possible exception of House Tor and House Kurac)  That's ass-backwards, and if it were to somehow change (I don't know how!), then maybe the roles would be appreciated more.

Templar would be the test case. If the southern templars have as bad of turnover as northern nobles, then I'm completely wrong.  

[Reiloth]

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

I don't really know whether it can be fixed. I've pondered it quite a bit. Players don't often give constructive, actionable feedback on why they are storing their sponsored roles. But here are some things I've gathered both from personal experience in sponsored roles and from other players and observation, in no particular order of importance:

-- Some players just don't really like rules and structure. They don't want to write character reports, be accountable for their pkills, or have to follow rules for conducting RPTs.
-- Some players don't enjoy being responsible for facilitating the enjoyment of other players through administrative tasks and plot/quest/project leadership.
-- Some players are very focused on their own characters' skill development. This is not a good match for most sponsored leader roles, because coded skill development usually needs to be far, far down the list of things that get done.
-- Some players simply aren't good at thinking up plots/projects/quests for themselves and their clans. They are reactive rather than proactive. In the player-driven environment, this is not a good fit for a sponsored role.
-- Sometimes players don't enjoy the mostly mundane focus of sponsored leader roles. That is to say, if it ain't high magick, they ain't interested.
-- Sometimes players get lonely if there are not enough other leaders around for them to interact with. It really sucks to be only one of two nobles in your city...and the other noble doesn't play at the same time as you.
-- Some players are really mostly into adventuring. Some sponsored roles might include adventuring, but none of them is mostly about adventuring. (Byn Sergeant is the closest match here.)
-- Some players just won't put up with the crap that minions often give. Minions die, run away into the 'rinth, run off to go salting, pick fights, steal from clanmates, etc. at an astonishing rate. This can burn out player leaders.
-- Sometimes the players and staff in a particular clan configuration just don't get along.

I could probably think of more reasons, but it's late and I'm tired. Player leaders who stick to it for the long-term are very rare. Those who do a good job at it are even rarer. Most of these problems I don't think are fixable, because they're about the fact that mostly players just like doing their own thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that; it just makes the job of staff harder when players aren't fully invested in helping out too.

Word. I think it takes a particular type of person to play sponsored leader roles, not to mention lots of time. I've been in great leadership roles, and ran out of time. Or had a RL event that came up that led to losing time to play the game. I've loved those roles, and think back fondly on them, wishing that I could have stuck with it instead of storing, honestly.

[Bacon]

I actually find it easier to get other PCs involved when I'm playing as lowly criminal scum or an outlaw weirdo.

This.
It's probably the most true statement regarding sponsored leader roles vs. independent roles and being able to get stuff going around you. The fact of the matter is, you find that in a sponsored leader position you are under a lot more restrictions as to what you can and can't do. This limits being able to mix things up a bit to keep yourself and those around you entertained and involved as easily. (Note: I'm not saying it prevents it from being done but it does make it harder.)
I don't know how it is now with the changes to staff run plots vs. player run and other changes. I haven't played one of those roles since before many of these changes. But at that time, it was the single biggest problem with keeping things going both for the characters around mine and myself. Not enough freedom to make things happen as easily. I don't know what can be done to fix this really, there are obviously certain things with certain clans that cannot be changed.

[Talia]

Southern templars do have less turnover than northern nobles, but southern templars still have a ton of turnover. And I don't believe it has to do with perks that come with any of the roles; rather, it has to do with the fact that the role of southern templar has some built-in excitement involved, in the form of chasing criminals, chasing and gemming or killing rogue magickers, and generally being openly menacing. No other sponsored role is very similar in those ways. (Northern templars don't chase criminals so often because there is a smaller playerbase, and also because crime can be licensed. The play around rogue magickers is different there too.)

The problem is that the game needs player leaders to be generating excitement, not just responding to excitement. Most players don't know how to generate their own excitement, and of the players who do know how to generate excitement, it tends to be, let's say...more spontaneous and chaotic than sustained and widely involving.

As to whether all the good leaders end up on staff, that's not true. I can think of a number of great player leaders who are not on staff. But not all of them (or even most of them) are playing leaders right now. The role of leader is extremely taxing, and no one wants to do it all the time, especially since the reward of doing so lies mostly in the satisfaction of doing so. These great leaders also tend to be somewhat older and more mature players, who have lives and stuff, so can't always play leaders.

Word. I think it takes a particular type of person to play sponsored leader roles, not to mention lots of time. I've been in great leadership roles, and ran out of time. Or had a RL event that came up that led to losing time to play the game. I've loved those roles, and think back fondly on them, wishing that I could have stuck with it instead of storing, honestly.

I hear you on that. It's happened to everyone who's put the time in to play leaders, at some point.

The fact of the matter is, you find that in a sponsored leader position you are under a lot more restrictions as to what you can and can't do. This limits being able to mix things up a bit to keep yourself and those around you entertained and involved as easily. (Note: I'm not saying it prevents it from being done but it does make it harder.)
I don't know how it is now with the changes to staff run plots vs. player run and other changes. I haven't played one of those roles since before many of these changes. But at that time, it was the single biggest problem with keeping things going both for the characters around mine and myself. Not enough freedom to make things happen as easily. I don't know what can be done to fix this really, there are obviously certain things with certain clans that cannot be changed.

Part of the issue is that the gameworld wouldn't be the gameworld that we all say we love (with rigid social hierarchies and intense prejudices and harshness and etc) if, for example, nobles could always do just whatever they feel like doing to have fun or advance a plot. The fact that Lady Borsail can squash your life if she wants is entangled with her pampered lifestyle and her horror at the thought of leaving the walls of Allanak. Were those things to be separated, the game's cultures would be cheapened and watered down.

From a practical standpoint, IMO, the fact that leaders cannot codedly accomplish everything they need to in pursuit of a plot, due to restrictions, is good for the game because it forces them to recruit and train loyal minions who can do those things for them, therefore widening the plot and its possibilities. If Lord Fale is a perfectly competent assassin on his own, and has cultural authority to conduct his own assassinations, then what is the point of your puny newbie 'rinthi assassin? Removing restrictions from sponsored roles would unbalance them.

[Bacon]

Right that's what I meant with the last line of that. There is really nothing that can be done to make it just as easy for a sponsored role. Once people experience both, I think they find it just plain easier and less time consuming to do it with unsponsored characters rather than take on sponsored roles. It's not that I haven't had fun with mine, not at all. It's just easier to do it other ways I think. It may be a contributing factor to the storing of sponsored characters.

[Riev]

I can say from my point of view, that I've only really had two "leadership" PCs, and one of them was only because, at the time, I wasn't a fan of any other leadership PCs available.

I get burned out real quickly though, when the same player rolls through the clan, time after time, or when I really feel like its my job to keep people occupied. I'm much better in a support role, helping the leader get things done, or being an aide-de-camp of sorts. Taking meetings, so on and so forth.

Besides. Everyone knows aides have more power than their bosses. The bosses are too busy to deal with your piddly ass, so the aide gets free reign. All the time.

Though to be a bit more on topic, there is plenty to do in the game, once you start getting into character. Socializing, schmoozing nobles, mastercrafting, being the best <x> in <city, region, known>. The trick is to find out just what your character wants, and Dwarven Focus it out of the park.

[jstorrie]

I have a feeling that a lot of sponsored-leadership-role-burnout is due to unrealistic expectations.

This gets back to ianmartin's original post. No, not everything is possible in Armageddon - and for the same reason that not everything is possible in a tabletop RPG session. Some things are just logistical nightmares to oversee and implement. The Copper War event, for example, was hell of sweet; it also took up a lot of staff-hours. I'm not surprised that it's proven difficult to arrange "campaign events" on that scale again. Not being on the staff side I can't give you an estimate on how many hours of staffer time it took, but I'm pretty sure it was a big number.

The most successful leader PCs are likely the ones who come up with ideas for events which require only minimal staff oversight. If you can say "we're doing some cool shit next weekend, log in!" and then everyone can log in and just go - staff included - that's the best sort of event. It's kind of unreasonable to expect your clan staff to slave away all week preparing a one-hour event for a dozen or so PCs. The best RPTs, in my mind, are the ones which only require staff to show up twenty or thirty minutes before everyone else.

I think that a lot of people jump into the high-level sponsored roles with big plans, pitch them to staff, and get the "uh we can't possibly do all the work it would take to implement this, as much as we would like to" answer. The unsuccesful ones think "fuck this, I guess it's just status quo forever." The successful ones, on the other hand, think "okay, what's the coolest event idea I can come up with which would require only a reasonable amount of work by my clan staff, who are volunteers?"

I actually like that in Armageddon, there are overt social and environmental issues which prevent the individual from getting far in life. I've played MUDs where players could become high priests and kings and such. Those MUDs run into the same "what you want to do simply requires too much work by the staff/immortals/gamemasters to be feasible" problems, but in their cases, you get this alienating IC/OOC split - whereas in Armageddon, you can chalk it up to The System being hostile to individuals of below house-head-level and it feels all right.

I wish that I could sum all this up by talking about my specific experiences lately with trying to arrange certain in-game events, getting the "no logistical way to do it" answer, and then successfully re-working it into something more feasible (which turned out to be killer fun.) I guess I'll tell you in a year.

[RogueGunslinger]

To chop muthafuckas up with bone swords.

[Talia]

jstorrie's perspective is very astute.

Combat-adventuring RPTs, the ones that take a group of players a few hours to complete on a single evening, usually require multiple hours of staff setup time ahead of the RPT, and multiple staff online and participating during the time of the RPT. For one of these a month or so ago, a couple of staffers did a few hours of work ahead of time to write up documentation for other staffers to follow during the event, which detailed things like where the group was going, what they should probably encounter, what the appropriate aggressive creatures were to use, possible outcomes, etc. Then during the RPT there were four to five staffers online, all coordinating together to load monsters at the right times, throw echoes to the group and individuals, answer wishes, and make effects happen in game. For one RPT of a few hours, all of this staff time.

For a social RPT a few weeks ago, another staffer and I each spent about four hours online ahead of time, both of us working furiously to make sure that everything got finished setting up: NPCs, decorations, food and wine deliveries, and some "surprises" to make things extra-fun for players. During the few-hour RPT, there were five staffers online for the duration of the event, playing NPCs, answering wishes, echoing, making things happen.

I've done a number of RPTs staffside and these events were very typical in terms of use of staff time.

Players never see all of this. That is to say, players understand that there is work that needs to be done, but players generally don't understand how much. And that's fine. Except it would be nice if, when we say, "that's too much work for us," there was some trust that it doesn't mean we're just being lazy asses. We like the work, we want to do the work, but yes, sometimes it is too much.

[Dakota]

Even though I'm new..

In a tiny, indie, NON-karma, mundane role..

You can shake the pillars of the world. It's awesome. Though.. Once you -do- start to shake things? Prepare for mantis head..

Regardless its fun and you can "get shit done". You can make your own way. Make your own group. Start your own little war (or a big war). It's not easy and staff usually say something to effect of: "This doesn't seem like a realistic idea and will be insanely hard".. But they're right.. It's hard. It's not realistic b/c most of the time shit like that doesn't work.. But when it DOES? Even if you flame out (or get flamed up) early on once things start to happen and die? It kinda makes it worth it.. b/c shit did get done and for a few RL weeks or days or if you're lucky, months, all those super badass, old, high-karma, sponsored role people are looking at (or for...) you.

+ what roguegunslinger said..

Chop motha fuckas up with swords.

[marko]

My response is dated since I haven't been active with Arm for "some time" now.

But, these are the things that I've seen happen in the game that were created by players and changed things:

New clans:  For example the Muark.  They were totally a player driven concept back in the day.  Eventually they had a huge impact on all sorts of things that happened in the game world.

Ironsword clan.
House Kohmar
House Reynolte
The Guild
Multiple tribes

and a few more.

In terms of world changing events that were -player- initiated:

Siege of Allanak
Muark homelands
Destruction of Tuluk

And more.

In terms of players changing the 'desired' guideline that was thought up and introduced as a series of major plots:

The Copper War

A lot of the ones I can think of would probably still be best left unsaid.  Yay for protecting IC info.

But, time and again players change, alter, and otherwise destroy, dismember, and dismantle immortal created plots.  What often happened is this:

A great idea would be floated.  There'd be a general consensus of doing it.  The start of it would happen and them uppity players wouldn't play ball as expected.  Now, staff has two options:  Ignore the players or adapt.  In my experience 90% of the time the plots and outcomes are adjusted to reflect what players are doing.  When I was staff, the typical outline for a proposed plotline would have multiple possible endings based on how things went with players.

Players have a huge impact on the general direction of the game.

Here's the biggest difference between the typical player and the typical staff:

A player thinks a week is a long time.
A staff member sees a week as a blip.

Staff members typically think of timeframes that are measureable by months.
Players often use days to measure their achievements.

Since players come and go rapidly, it's tough for staff to continually alter small things based on individual players since that player may be gone within a day.  As such, longevity becomes an important guide as to whether or not something 'will be changed' for a player.

If I, as a player, wanted to change something what I would do is write up a detailed request via the request tool to my appropriate staff member.  I would indicate the following:

When the event would happen.
What I hoped to achieve.
What are the possible outcomes that I can think of.
What are the ramifications of the action that I can think of.
What would be the effort required from the staff.
What timeline would be desired.

And then I would hope and understand that staff typically have a greater view of the gamescape than I would as a player and, as such, they may alter everything I requested based on the underlying reality of the situation that I was unaware of.

Let's say as part of my outcome I want a room description changed.  I would copy the old room description.  Then I would write in the new room description.  The new description would -have- to be grammatically proper and without a single spelling mistake.  It would also -have- to fit within the theme of the region it was being written for and the event that occurred. 

The more -you- do as a player for the staff the higher the likelihood of something actually happening. 

Does this guarantee success?  no, it does not.  Remember, staff are people, they have lives, they may have other commitments, and they do have stuff to do.  So if it happens, then it is a bonus. 

If you get into the habit of thinking about what it is you are trying to do you will start to develop a greater understanding of why it takes some things long times to accomplish.  It isn't because the staff is unwilling to do anything - it is because a lot of times we don't grasp the full impact of our desire.  Staff members have to take the impact into consideration, they may have to discuss the situation with other staff members to see what else needs to be changed because of the request and those communications take time.

[Hot_Dancer]

I generally feel like I can accomplish anything I want in the game.

...

I'd just have to quit my job, nullify attempts at social activity and wear corrective guards on my wrists
at all times.

Typically, if there's something I want to do and I manage to get my characters to go after it all the support
in the world seems more than available (As well as other PC's drooling to come along for the ride. They like rides.)

Nowadays, I keep running out of available playtime or I get handicapped in trying to make short playing time stints
as efficient as possible.

[My 2 sids]

On paper a PC really can do anything because the game is so well developed.   As others have pointed out there are hundreds of examples of how just one PC has changed the game.  However, I understand the OP here.  Here's my answer:

Even though everyone makes their PCs independently, for some reason the game does tend to have fads -- where there are some hot spots to play, or a kind of PC to make, or whatever.  And although the staff does a great job of trying to keep things balanced on paper, in reality the playerbase can become spread a little thin.

Often times a great concept for a PC or plot falls flat, simply because there aren't enough other PCs around to contribute.  Thus, there are times when fads develop and the same type of plot/ conflict/ role continues time after time.

The only solution I can see would be to OOCly close options in effort to force the PCs to all stay closer together (so they can play off one another).  Either by closing entire clans, or allowing each clan to only have PCs in a specialized area. Such as hunters only work for Salarr, crafters only work for Kadius, and having Tuluk open to high-up/ political PCs (aides/ nobility/ etc)

[Zoan]

Or closing one of the cities down. You know which city I'm talking about, right guys? *nudge wink*

[Saellyn]

On paper a PC really can do anything because the game is so well developed.   As others have pointed out there are hundreds of examples of how just one PC has changed the game.  However, I understand the OP here.  Here's my answer:

Even though everyone makes their PCs independently, for some reason the game does tend to have fads -- where there are some hot spots to play, or a kind of PC to make, or whatever.  And although the staff does a great job of trying to keep things balanced on paper, in reality the playerbase can become spread a little thin.

Often times a great concept for a PC or plot falls flat, simply because there aren't enough other PCs around to contribute.  Thus, there are times when fads develop and the same type of plot/ conflict/ role continues time after time.

The only solution I can see would be to OOCly close options in effort to force the PCs to all stay closer together (so they can play off one another).  Either by closing entire clans, or allowing each clan to only have PCs in a specialized area. Such as hunters only work for Salarr, crafters only work for Kadius, and having Tuluk open to high-up/ political PCs (aides/ nobility/ etc)

One question.

If you close Kadius to hunters, and Salarr to crafters... how the hell is Kadius going to get their materials, and how is Salarr going to make armor and weapons?

[RogueGunslinger]

Or closing one of the cities down. You know which city I'm talking about, right guys? *nudge wink*

I'd be all for getting rid of Storm and Luirs as starting locations.

[Saellyn]

Or Allanak...

[My 2 sids]

One question.
If you close Kadius to hunters, and Salarr to crafters... how the hell is Kadius going to get their materials, and how is Salarr going to make armor and weapons?

Okay, so maybe we need weapon crafters for Salarr 

But as for materials, well... NPCs

I'm just saying to have 10 or so open clans   vs  5 or so clans open w/ little skill/concept over-lap  sets up the playerbase a little differently.


Just like putting the same amount of water in a wide shallow dish  vs  a tall cup -- same amount of water but it looks different.  One is wide open, one has greater depth.

[Riev]

 I hate to feed the derail, but don't forget that while who only shows about 50-60 people online at any given time, there are about 200 unique players that play Arm in a given week.

If there are ten open clans at any given time, by my math, thats a possibility of 20 people in any clan. Given fuzzy math for indies and rogues and etc, you could still have 5-6 people per clan at any given time.

So lets steer clear of the "The world is too big" crap.

[Synthesis]

I hate to feed the derail, but don't forget that while who only shows about 50-60 people online at any given time, there are about 200 unique players that play Arm in a given week.

If there are ten open clans at any given time, by my math, thats a possibility of 20 people in any clan. Given fuzzy math for indies and rogues and etc, you could still have 5-6 people per clan at any given time.

So lets steer clear of the "The world is too big" crap.

Well, we can still quibble over what exact population-per-clan represents the critical mass for awesome.

[spicemustflow]

The only solution I can see would be to OOCly close options in effort to force the PCs to all stay closer together (so they can play off one another).  Either by closing entire clans, or allowing each clan to only have PCs in a specialized area. Such as hunters only work for Salarr, crafters only work for Kadius, and having Tuluk open to high-up/ political PCs (aides/ nobility/ etc)

No. Closing clans in the name of consolidation is a horrible idea.

[Lukoyin]

To the OP;

Not so long ago (within the year mark so I can't give any details, really) My no-karma, mundane PC had an idea that "could" potentially have stretched across the entire "known" for effects, provided certain steps were taken.

Staff response was roughly: "Sounds like a pretty cool idea. Keep us updated so we can make the world react accordingly!"

Staff like brainz. Give them portions of your own, and they will be more then happy to help you if possible/reasonable for the gameworld.

[Calavera]

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

I don't really know whether it can be fixed. I've pondered it quite a bit. Players don't often give constructive, actionable feedback on why they are storing their sponsored roles. But here are some things I've gathered both from personal experience in sponsored roles and from other players and observation, in no particular order of importance:

-- Some players just don't really like rules and structure. They don't want to write character reports, be accountable for their pkills, or have to follow rules for conducting RPTs.
-- Some players don't enjoy being responsible for facilitating the enjoyment of other players through administrative tasks and plot/quest/project leadership.
-- Some players are very focused on their own characters' skill development. This is not a good match for most sponsored leader roles, because coded skill development usually needs to be far, far down the list of things that get done.
-- Some players simply aren't good at thinking up plots/projects/quests for themselves and their clans. They are reactive rather than proactive. In the player-driven environment, this is not a good fit for a sponsored role.
-- Sometimes players don't enjoy the mostly mundane focus of sponsored leader roles. That is to say, if it ain't high magick, they ain't interested.
-- Sometimes players get lonely if there are not enough other leaders around for them to interact with. It really sucks to be only one of two nobles in your city...and the other noble doesn't play at the same time as you.
-- Some players are really mostly into adventuring. Some sponsored roles might include adventuring, but none of them is mostly about adventuring. (Byn Sergeant is the closest match here.)
-- Some players just won't put up with the crap that minions often give. Minions die, run away into the 'rinth, run off to go salting, pick fights, steal from clanmates, etc. at an astonishing rate. This can burn out player leaders.
-- Sometimes the players and staff in a particular clan configuration just don't get along.

I could probably think of more reasons, but it's late and I'm tired. Player leaders who stick to it for the long-term are very rare. Those who do a good job at it are even rarer. Most of these problems I don't think are fixable, because they're about the fact that mostly players just like doing their own thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that; it just makes the job of staff harder when players aren't fully invested in helping out too.

To extrapolate on something Talia said, I'd just like to toss in my two 'sids regarding turnover as well.

When I was a player, I often found that the number one reason I stored PCs, be it a four-hour-played gemmer or a sponsored PC that was a few years old, was because circumstances changed in my life that required me to put Arm (and all my other hobbies) much further down the priority list.

Shit happens.

When you combine Talia's above examples with the simple fact that the longer you stick to a role, the more likely your RL circumstances are going to get in the way at some point, the tunover rate can be pretty high.

Unfortunately, while there are solutions to some of the difficulties Talia listed above, there will always be decent turnover because we all have lives. I think rather than trying to "cure" PC turnover, some effort might be better spent on trying to make the most of it.

If it were up to me, I'd see a lot more storage requests end with an "on-screen" death for the PC in question, so that the remaining players in the clan have something to generate plots and PCs involved with the store-ee have some closure. There was nothing I hated more as a minion than hearing my boss had been transferred.

[FantasyWriter]

Or Allanak...

This has always been my favorite solution to player consolidation.
I was always hoping the big "end of the world plot" that ended with the last HRPT would leave us short one or both city states.

I think it would have left us with an entirely different and fresh game while we wait on the Reborn rollout. Sometimes when I try to come up with new PCs or general ideas on how I would and could change the game as a player, I feel like I am beating the old dead horse with a stick. (and I haven't been playing NEARLY as long as half of you.

Just think of all the lootz from foraging through the RUINS OF ALLANAK!

[FantasyWriter]

! >salvage steel.dragon

[Qzzrbl]

! >salvage steel.dragon

You begin salvaging.

You break apart a steel dragon statue but produce nothing useful.

[Reiloth]

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

I don't really know whether it can be fixed. I've pondered it quite a bit. Players don't often give constructive, actionable feedback on why they are storing their sponsored roles. But here are some things I've gathered both from personal experience in sponsored roles and from other players and observation, in no particular order of importance:

-- Some players just don't really like rules and structure. They don't want to write character reports, be accountable for their pkills, or have to follow rules for conducting RPTs.
-- Some players don't enjoy being responsible for facilitating the enjoyment of other players through administrative tasks and plot/quest/project leadership.
-- Some players are very focused on their own characters' skill development. This is not a good match for most sponsored leader roles, because coded skill development usually needs to be far, far down the list of things that get done.
-- Some players simply aren't good at thinking up plots/projects/quests for themselves and their clans. They are reactive rather than proactive. In the player-driven environment, this is not a good fit for a sponsored role.
-- Sometimes players don't enjoy the mostly mundane focus of sponsored leader roles. That is to say, if it ain't high magick, they ain't interested.
-- Sometimes players get lonely if there are not enough other leaders around for them to interact with. It really sucks to be only one of two nobles in your city...and the other noble doesn't play at the same time as you.
-- Some players are really mostly into adventuring. Some sponsored roles might include adventuring, but none of them is mostly about adventuring. (Byn Sergeant is the closest match here.)
-- Some players just won't put up with the crap that minions often give. Minions die, run away into the 'rinth, run off to go salting, pick fights, steal from clanmates, etc. at an astonishing rate. This can burn out player leaders.
-- Sometimes the players and staff in a particular clan configuration just don't get along.

I could probably think of more reasons, but it's late and I'm tired. Player leaders who stick to it for the long-term are very rare. Those who do a good job at it are even rarer. Most of these problems I don't think are fixable, because they're about the fact that mostly players just like doing their own thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that; it just makes the job of staff harder when players aren't fully invested in helping out too.

To extrapolate on something Talia said, I'd just like to toss in my two 'sids regarding turnover as well.

When I was a player, I often found that the number one reason I stored PCs, be it a four-hour-played gemmer or a sponsored PC that was a few years old, was because circumstances changed in my life that required me to put Arm (and all my other hobbies) much further down the priority list.

Shit happens.

When you combine Talia's above examples with the simple fact that the longer you stick to a role, the more likely your RL circumstances are going to get in the way at some point, the tunover rate can be pretty high.

Unfortunately, while there are solutions to some of the difficulties Talia listed above, there will always be decent turnover because we all have lives. I think rather than trying to "cure" PC turnover, some effort might be better spent on trying to make the most of it.

If it were up to me, I'd see a lot more storage requests end with an "on-screen" death for the PC in question, so that the remaining players in the clan have something to generate plots and PCs involved with the store-ee have some closure. There was nothing I hated more as a minion than hearing my boss had been transferred.

Calavera, I totally agree. RL catches up with all of us, and when I am playing a sponsored role, or even an indy or someone in a Clan that's lower down -- It sometimes doesn't matter, you just know it's time to store. I wish there were an option, and maybe in the future I will just put in a 'question' request...

Hey guys, I was thinking about storing, but how about we just kill my dude brutally?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The point of the game is to live in a barbaric world and be someone else, freed of your real world social and moral restrictions. It's to live another life. It's like reading books, but interactive. The point of the game, of course, is to provide yourself something to fill your empty hours with.

I remember my empty moments with fondness.

[allieday1]

I feel Arm has really changed and more towards IMM's control and not want your PC goes after. the point to me use to be survive and try and make my PC life nice. Now feel  things is if someone wants your pc to do something then you get a chance. Otherwise you broke a Doc or something but in all still fun to play

[musashi]

The point of the game is obviously to become so bad ass you're force stored for the safety of the rest of the player base.

[FantasyWriter]

The point of the game is obviously to become so bad ass you're force stored for the safety of the rest of the player base.

I would love to win this way, just once.

[Saellyn]

I don't think that's how it works <.<

[Zharal]

The point of the game is to get so into your character that you find yourself playing 10 to 14 hr runs of mudding. its like the sea guys, the tides roll in and out. At times theres so much activity its hard and at times its dead still. Hang out a while and things happen... one last thing.. The point of the game is to have fun and enjoy yourself.