What is the point of the game????

[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.