Creating Meaningful Conflict (GMHs, Nobles, etc)

[Wday]

Posted by: HavokBlue
Insert Quote
Those people probably shouldn't complain on the GDB about a lack of plots then.

Very true. I myself rarely post on this because I am not the one with big ideas on help and enjoy running with what we have already.
I don't want staff to see this and think another bitching player, But if my two cents count. I say what we need is thos scary oh shit tribes from the past alive again.
I am talking about raiders, Benjaris, Off set D elves and such. Now days feels like if you raid your whole damn bloodline is known and will be wiped. We need the bad guys back in the desert. But just killers and over power dwarves, muls and mages. But those give me your pack assholes, Even if the target runs they are afraid next time.

[Talia]

Please make it easier for everyone and anyone to get involved in these plots (if they really do exist). I seriously think we need more open conflict going on (perhaps in my particular region of Zalanthas just needs it more than the other?). If you are a leader PC in the seat, please share with other PCs and help spread the fun! I'd love for a new player, without knowing anything going on with the GDB and the discussion here, to be able to jump into the game and realize by themselves that "wow, my character is having to make some really important, moral choices right off the bat. There's this conflict there that I could be involved in, and if I don't like that plot, then there's this other plot over there that I can be involved in"! Right now, the feeling I get when I log in is "suck up to a Noble, Templar, ANYONE, and maybe I'll get a bone to pick thrown my way after a full IG year, once I'm FINALLY trusted to wipe the dust off my leader's boots."

The game chases new players (and old) away, ultimately because it's so hard to get involved in a meaningful plot without being a 50+day master warrior/assassion/ranger. If you get involved in plots from day 0 as a player, we could retain so many more players. Being a veteran player should not give you an advantage over a newer player in what kind of plots you can be involved in. PLEASE FIX THIS!

I hear your perspective but I don't really agree with you. We plan open-ended plots where all sort and levels of skillsets are useful. Basically, if your PC has contact maxed (and guess what, they all do now!), then you can get involved in large regional plots without any other skills. It does require you, the player, to find out what's going on and proactively get involved if you don't have a leader who is doing that for you. Yes, it may require some sucking up to leadership. I'm not even gonna apologize for that--large regional plots require leaders, so leader do get a lot of the attention, and will have tasks and information to hand out. Yes, we also try to run scenes on the street for PCs to see and get involved with at every level. And we do try to involve peripheral PCs when we can. But we have clans and we have leaders and plots will largely, always, trickle down through them.

For example: The "Halloween" plot we ran last year in Allanak. A wide variety of PCs were involved in the run-up, and in the actual dungeon crawl. Many were combat PCs, some were sneakies, some were social roles, others were nobles and templars and GMH leaders. Often, the involvement of the PC depended on the player's personal willingness to get involved. Yes, that's right, we frequently see players back out of plots because they are risky and scary. And it's true, they are--your PC could indeed die or have something else bad happen! So it's really not on staff if players choose to not get involved.

[Desertman]

Truth, I once backed out of a staff offered plot and did not even realize it until quite a while later. There were other things surrounding my inability to be involved, I couldn't have regardless, but, when I realized it was a staff-ran NPC later, I felt like such a douche. I'm pretty sure they had setup an entire adventure/location/rooms just for my group.

[Jeax]

I am talking about raiders, Benjaris, Off set D elves and such. Now days feels like if you raid your whole damn bloodline is known and will be wiped. We need the bad guys back in the desert. But just killers and over power dwarves, muls and mages. But those give me your pack assholes, Even if the target runs they are afraid next time.

I think we are seeing this happen. SRs, Soh, and now the ATV...I expect the sands to come alive with things that aren't city-state travelers in the near future (moreso than before anyway). I agree with you that having another raider group could spice life up. Of course, House to House conflict...you could contract raids. Hire bandits, etc. Getting additional conflict in the every day means additional things like that out in the sands. I also feel like you're making a comment based off of only one example.

[Wday]

I have backed out of plots because I simply felt over my head there. It happens I know, but I still would say I support major plots and think in truth it is more minor plots we need going.
I would be tickled to see the Houses change from norther and southern into two Houses itself. I could see fun and great outcome from such plots.

[BadSkeelz]

I missed a staff plot because I was having too much fun RPing not giving a fuck about a trolling animation. My bad

I'm going to link this old thread here because it's a similar argument, except with the City State as actors instead of the GMH.

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48108.0.html

Basically, if there's no competing interests and no achievable goals, there's going to be no conflict. GMH have no clear competing interests (though I think there's room to find some in the game as it now stands). If they did have some reason to come to blows, there's little PCs could do in the game than bump off the odd Hunter or Agent. It's not like there's actual caravans we can easily raid.

[Patuk]

I think a lot of conflict would be easier if more organisations had conflicting needs.

I also think a lot of conflict would be easier if skilled characters weren't such a ridiculous pain to come by.

Lastly, I think conflict would be way easier if advantahes gained wouldn't be so great.

Suppose you take a game that's Arm's polar opposite maybe, battlefield. Conflict in battlefield is really easy: team A needs to capture the thing, team B needs to capture the thing, conflict.

People in battlefield also aren't very invested in their characters. If some sniper gets you or you get backstabbed, you don't lose six months of painstaking twinking on an outdated codebase praying nothing bad happens so you'll have to start over again. If you get shot in battlefield, you can respawn and run back to where you're supposed to be without it being too big a deal?

But in Arm?

Half of Arm's organisations don't really get in each other's way in the first place.

GMH's are the most obvious example: they have no meaningful competition or equal-sized people to go up against. Noble Houses aren't immune to it, either. Dasari can go ahead and gather plants or whatever without it getting in the way of other Houses(though they could use their help, maybe.) Winrothol is the only slaving operation in Tuluk, and Borsail's competitor has no PC's in it. Nobody can compete with Tenneshi in building shit, nobody goes for bread and games but Fale, nobody employs gemmed dudes but Oash.

So, as I'm demonstrating, Houses and such are so far apart that there isn't even much of a reason for conflict.

But screw it, your PC is cutthroat/sadistic/ambitious/whatever, and you're going to compete with people anyway. Okay, cool. Power to you for keeping the game fun.

I can respawn in Battlefield with an equally strong dude to play, or die in WoW and not lose everything, but in Arm? Tough shit. Need a saboteur for your smuggle/politics/whatever conflict? Better give a dude a month of copious, boring training where there's a very real chance they'll die from exposure to other shady dudes/bored soldiers. Need 2-3 dudes who are half-decent fighters and won't die in the first sandstorm to show up? Weeks of training at least, with any number of your people dying because the wilderness is dangerous and they had the dubious fortune to find a raptor AND a tarantula.

And even then, chances are your people will have different ideas. Your plot to dunk a wheel of mouldy cheese into Oash's still or smuggle a low-quality inix stud into Winrothol's pen may be awesome for you, but your assassin bro and ranger bitch might think they have way better shit to do than to risk everything so stupidly just to mess with people a bit. There's a ton of old characters with nothing to do at any point in time because they (rightly) feel going out poses a lot of risk for only a little reward.

But suppose that's not a problem eitherh. You have something meaningful to do, and your dudes don't mind spending months buffing up to actually be useful. In fact, you managed to get your people all together and rode out in an RPT to battle your rival clan. Awesome! Maybe you chose a quiet street a night, or a certain dune in the sands, I don't care, shit's awesome and some kind of cool battle happens..

.. And you lose. Shame.

It's not so bad, really. Maybe they had more time to prepare, or just had more people, some lucky reels, whatever. Doesn't matter. You'll just train new dudes and gather new weapons and-

Nope. Nevermind. Arm isn't stagnant, and running conflict doesn't work in it. If the AoD fights the Legions today, loses, and even a few people die, it's game over for a long time to come. There's no strong people to join up out of the blue or shortcut to get strong characters. Barring northern dudes going extinct in massive RPT's or all getting bored and dying, the Legions are gonna win a normal fight pretty easily for another while now.




I know my post seems a tad bleak, but it needn't be. The three problems I point out may or may not get changed, but even with zero coded changes, there are plenty of things you could do to work towards solving them:

The solution to clans having no reason to get angry with each other is, basically, to make sure their interests conflict. Make sure clans need shit found only in each other's backyards. It doesn't even need to be over resources off in the middle of nowhere. Instead give House Tor's finest a great preference for mounts taken from the north, especially those of now-Winrothol breeding. In turn, Dasari might find out the ocotillo Oash brews into their wine is top-notch for some kind of awesome brew, and will therefor have people trying to get their hands onto that shit. It doesn't need to be epic-level, grand, and all-important, but just making sure there are clear things your clan needs that other clans have/also need means there always is something for people to focus on.

As for people's investment in their character, and the effort required to get to a 'useful' level..

.. Please don't make some things so arbitrarily hard to raise/dangerous?

People have went over ways to make skills actually raisable without resorting to punching stilt lizards or whatever a thousand times, so I'm not going to talk about that. Still, it'd help.

Additionally, it'd be kind of nice if people trying to raise their skills weren't come down on so hard. I've been crimcoded for getting frusrated at sneak just not raising past advanced and going twink on it not too long ago. Similarly, staff tells off people weighing themselves down with rocks and shit, and fine, that's no less twinky - but whatever else are people supposed to do?

As for danger, I think a lot of people might be more willing to go out and do whatever if there were a way to assess risks. People don't ask to be allowed to throw their torches into adjacent rooms because they want to be arsonists, but because it sucks losing an awesome ranger to a death trap darkness room you just can't illuminate. I don't think the game necessarily needs more safety, but a better way for people to know whether or not they're about to die horribly would be neat.

As for prolonged conflict being hard.. I'm not especially sure what to do about this. Certainly it helps there isn't some kind of weekly 'Allanak and Tuluk duke it out' RPT, but if you want to promote conflict between anyone, it may be helpful to keep it indirect and covert rather than out in the open and blades flashing. I actually think staff do really well at ensuring this doesn't become a problem, but everytime people ask whether they please can have a war can we or somesuch, I think of this. Prolonged direct conflict just doesn't work very well in a PC context.

Certainly this can't solve everything, but I do at least hope it offers a solid framework. Getting things going is not easy, but I really do want to see it happen.

[KankWhisperer]

Even if you want to get involved doesn't mean you can or should. Sometimes you get cockblocked by other players and not the staff anyway because they don't want you stealing all the fun of their little RPT.

[MeTekillot]

Role apps for skilled cronies should be more commpn. Will elaborate when i get home

[Semper]

I hear your perspective but I don't really agree with you. We plan open-ended plots where all sort and levels of skillsets are useful. Basically, if your PC has contact maxed (and guess what, they all do now!), then you can get involved in large regional plots without any other skills. It does require you, the player, to find out what's going on and proactively get involved if you don't have a leader who is doing that for you. Yes, it may require some sucking up to leadership. I'm not even gonna apologize for that--large regional plots require leaders, so leader do get a lot of the attention, and will have tasks and information to hand out. Yes, we also try to run scenes on the street for PCs to see and get involved with at every level. And we do try to involve peripheral PCs when we can. But we have clans and we have leaders and plots will largely, always, trickle down through them.

Why not just broaden the scope of those involved when planning? Instead of micro-managing the plots, and who gets involved, if the staff puts out a regional/global/whole House directive, then anyone on the fray will be picked up without having to be part of a clan, or led around by a leader.

I wasn't around for the holloween plot you mention, but I'll take the RatSucker plot as an example. That is a city-wide plot that a lot of clans could be involved with, but overall, between each plot "scene" (X rat got killed, post a rumor board, then wait to see who reacts, how far the reaction goes, etc), there was a lot of downtime that didn't directly impact PCs. A stander-by or a new player walking into the game in the middle of this can't really get involved unless they are directly involved with the clan leaders who are pursuing the plot. And once the Ratsucker plot came to a conclusion, what real impact was there to the overall flow of the game? Did further plots come out of that? Were the lives of PCs impacted, and important decisions have to be made? I don't know what happened at the end exactly, but the whole way the plot was run seems to me like a D&D style dungeon crawl (just like you describe the holloween plot?).

What I'm proposing is not more D&D-style plots, where if your character makes it to the end of the dungeon you get a prize and a pat on the back. I'm saying have large, all-encompassing plots that simply determine two important things:
Who is involved? Is this regional, city-wide, clan-wide, etc?
What value is at stake? What kind of morale decisions do PCs have to make by getting involved? And this last point is what I feel is missing in the way staff plots are being run currently. If there is a morale impact, PCs may still have the choice of backing out (if it really is dangerous), but by backing out of the plot, what value are they giving up on? How does their decision NOT to get involved impact those around them? These are critical questions that if a plot can provide, will increase the value of participating greatly.

I'm going to take the previous Ratsucker plot I mentioned before, and give it the twist that I'm arguing for, purely for the sake of an example. What if getting attacked by the Ratsucker didn't just suck you of life, but caused a magickal side effect? The blood of those diseased not only cure those who drink it, but cause them to glow. (Totally pulling this out of my butt, but hear me out to the end.) What kind of decisions will this force ANY character in the city to make? How your character treats those who become diseased can become a moral decision now. Do I value the life of the diseased, or do I value the life of the person being saved from their illness by sacrificing the diseased? Does my character choose to accept the magickal side effects of the healing, or consider it an abomination which should be purged? Do I allow more people to be diseased in order to get more of this healing blood, or do I destroy the Ratsucker and prevent anyone from potentially recieving this special healing? You see how much more conflict can be driven if a moral conflict is introduced to just a regular dungeon plot? Any character stepping onto the scene is immediately forced with making very important decisions, whether or not they even want to be involved in the plot or not. Choose NOT to be involved becomes a choice, because your character is deciding not to care about the increase in diseased people, etc.

I think all I'm really saying is, "Yes, I know there are plots going on IG which the staff try to get people involved in. Yes, I appreciate very much what the staff does in order to get plots going. Yes, I know how much is involved with the planning of each plot. But why not step back on the dungeon master way of handling plots, and throw in a moral decision that people make, and let the players paint the rest of the picture? Instead of a finite "Boss" at the end of each dungeon, why not make plots more focused around a never-ending conflict of values?

[Semper]

If you make plots based on moral decisions and values, rather than a dungeon boss at the end, then you really don't even need codedly skilled characters in order to participate. Any character can be involved in some way or form, because getting involved doesn't mean having to survive through "DOOMSDAY #25, SUPER FLAMING ELEMENTAL OF DESTRUCTION" in order to complete the dungeon. All your character can do to get involved is (for example) "support House X who has the same values that my character does, and is actively treating the victims of the monster with compassion."

[BadSkeelz]

The Ratsucker plot was just about perfect without any magickal mumbo jumbo or "moral" decision bullshit.

Though to be fair, I'm saying this as a player who joined just as that plot was really heating up. My unskilled, idiotic character got swept up in those events and really set on his life path. There was a crisis, warm bodies were needed, and I got to participate from there.

[Nyr]

This is something we have done before.  This is something we'll continue to do where we see it as appropriate.  Not events that are based on moral decisions and values (because this is Zalanthas, and we're already turning moral decisions and values on their heads), but events that are based on tough decisions or regional Zalanthan values.  It's too bad you missed the Halloween plot or some of the other ones that have happened that weren't Ratsucker.

[Semper]

This is something we have done before.  This is something we'll continue to do where we see it as appropriate.  Not events that are based on moral decisions and values (because this is Zalanthas, and we're already turning moral decisions and values on their heads), but events that are based on tough decisions or regional Zalanthan values.  It's too bad you missed the Halloween plot or some of the other ones that have happened that weren't Ratsucker.

Okay~ I think I'm honestly missing all the fun then! 

[KankWhisperer]

This is something we have done before.  This is something we'll continue to do where we see it as appropriate.  Not events that are based on moral decisions and values (because this is Zalanthas, and we're already turning moral decisions and values on their heads), but events that are based on tough decisions or regional Zalanthan values.  It's too bad you missed the Halloween plot or some of the other ones that have happened that weren't Ratsucker.

Okay~ I think I'm honestly missing all the fun then! 

Sometimes the only way to get involved in RPTs is to throw your own.

[Armaddict]

I say what we need is those scary oh shit tribes from the past alive again.

I assert that the 'old days' had scary raiding tribes, yes, but that the PC population itself was just more prone to raiding.  In the 'opening stages' of my playing the game, I would say that roughly -half- of desert encounters were ending in conflict.  Either that person wanted to raid you, you decided to raid that person, or they needed something and would chase you down (scaring the shit out of you in the process) just to show they weren't hostile, but needed something from you.  Sometimes, you'd defend yourself pre-emptively.  Blackmoon raiders were around, and they were the big name, but by and large, the population of the game itself was more hostile in the wilderness, which I saw as fitting.  Cities are the bastions of relative safety compared to the wilderness.  Back then, you'd report a raider to a templar, and they wouldn't respond with their mages.  The Byn wouldn't get hired to deal with you.  Everyone would stare at you and be like 'Out in the sands?  The fuck makes you think that's my problem?'

I don't think we need clans opened or staff run plots for raiding to be more widely used.  We just need...people who are willing to base out of less populated centers that don't care, who are familiar enough with the game to feel comfortable traveling to raid.  Maybe I'll try (again) to get that rolling, soon.  Last time failed miserably.

[KankWhisperer]

I hear your perspective but I don't really agree with you. We plan open-ended plots where all sort and levels of skillsets are useful. Basically, if your PC has contact maxed (and guess what, they all do now!), then you can get involved in large regional plots without any other skills. It does require you, the player, to find out what's going on and proactively get involved if you don't have a leader who is doing that for you. Yes, it may require some sucking up to leadership. I'm not even gonna apologize for that--large regional plots require leaders, so leader do get a lot of the attention, and will have tasks and information to hand out. Yes, we also try to run scenes on the street for PCs to see and get involved with at every level. And we do try to involve peripheral PCs when we can. But we have clans and we have leaders and plots will largely, always, trickle down through them.

Why not just broaden the scope of those involved when planning? Instead of micro-managing the plots, and who gets involved, if the staff puts out a regional/global/whole House directive, then anyone on the fray will be picked up without having to be part of a clan, or led around by a leader.

I wasn't around for the holloween plot you mention, but I'll take the RatSucker plot as an example. That is a city-wide plot that a lot of clans could be involved with, but overall, between each plot "scene" (X rat got killed, post a rumor board, then wait to see who reacts, how far the reaction goes, etc), there was a lot of downtime that didn't directly impact PCs. A stander-by or a new player walking into the game in the middle of this can't really get involved unless they are directly involved with the clan leaders who are pursuing the plot. And once the Ratsucker plot came to a conclusion, what real impact was there to the overall flow of the game? Did further plots come out of that? Were the lives of PCs impacted, and important decisions have to be made? I don't know what happened at the end exactly, but the whole way the plot was run seems to me like a D&D style dungeon crawl (just like you describe the holloween plot?).

What I'm proposing is not more D&D-style plots, where if your character makes it to the end of the dungeon you get a prize and a pat on the back. I'm saying have large, all-encompassing plots that simply determine two important things:
Who is involved? Is this regional, city-wide, clan-wide, etc?
What value is at stake? What kind of morale decisions do PCs have to make by getting involved? And this last point is what I feel is missing in the way staff plots are being run currently. If there is a morale impact, PCs may still have the choice of backing out (if it really is dangerous), but by backing out of the plot, what value are they giving up on? How does their decision NOT to get involved impact those around them? These are critical questions that if a plot can provide, will increase the value of participating greatly.

I'm going to take the previous Ratsucker plot I mentioned before, and give it the twist that I'm arguing for, purely for the sake of an example. What if getting attacked by the Ratsucker didn't just suck you of life, but caused a magickal side effect? The blood of those diseased not only cure those who drink it, but cause them to glow. (Totally pulling this out of my butt, but hear me out to the end.) What kind of decisions will this force ANY character in the city to make? How your character treats those who become diseased can become a moral decision now. Do I value the life of the diseased, or do I value the life of the person being saved from their illness by sacrificing the diseased? Does my character choose to accept the magickal side effects of the healing, or consider it an abomination which should be purged? Do I allow more people to be diseased in order to get more of this healing blood, or do I destroy the Ratsucker and prevent anyone from potentially recieving this special healing? You see how much more conflict can be driven if a moral conflict is introduced to just a regular dungeon plot? Any character stepping onto the scene is immediately forced with making very important decisions, whether or not they even want to be involved in the plot or not. Choose NOT to be involved becomes a choice, because your character is deciding not to care about the increase in diseased people, etc.

I think all I'm really saying is, "Yes, I know there are plots going on IG which the staff try to get people involved in. Yes, I appreciate very much what the staff does in order to get plots going. Yes, I know how much is involved with the planning of each plot. But why not step back on the dungeon master way of handling plots, and throw in a moral decision that people make, and let the players paint the rest of the picture? Instead of a finite "Boss" at the end of each dungeon, why not make plots more focused around a never-ending conflict of values?

I would tend to agree with this. I hate feeling that the only thing motivating me to join these plots is either willful ignorance or purely for OOC 'fun' reasons, or white knight syndrome, because there doesn't seem to be any upside for your group.

[Delirium]

I say what we need is those scary oh shit tribes from the past alive again.

I assert that the 'old days' had scary raiding tribes, yes, but that the PC population itself was just more prone to raiding.  In the 'opening stages' of my playing the game, I would say that roughly -half- of desert encounters were ending in conflict.  Either that person wanted to raid you, you decided to raid that person, or they needed something and would chase you down (scaring the shit out of you in the process) just to show they weren't hostile, but needed something from you.  Sometimes, you'd defend yourself pre-emptively.  Blackmoon raiders were around, and they were the big name, but by and large, the population of the game itself was more hostile in the wilderness, which I saw as fitting.  Cities are the bastions of relative safety compared to the wilderness.  Back then, you'd report a raider to a templar, and they wouldn't respond with their mages.  The Byn wouldn't get hired to deal with you.  Everyone would stare at you and be like 'Out in the sands?  The fuck makes you think that's my problem?'

I don't think we need clans opened or staff run plots for raiding to be more widely used.  We just need...people who are willing to base out of less populated centers that don't care, who are familiar enough with the game to feel comfortable traveling to raid.  Maybe I'll try (again) to get that rolling, soon.  Last time failed miserably.

Well, that and the sentiment is so strongly against "asshole" characters. Whenever I make assholes everyone is just SO OFFENDED that my mean, ugly, sunnovabitch didn't LOVE THEM!

To which I say, toughen up, buttercups.

[BadSkeelz]

I would tend to agree with this. I hate feeling that the only thing motivating me to join these plots is either willful ignorance or purely for OOC 'fun' reasons, or white knight syndrome, because there doesn't seem to be any upside for your group.

Not wanting your city overrun with monsters is a fairly compelling interest to most people, I'd imagine. Characters that try to shirk "Responsibility" like that should be held accountable by the powers that be - which opens up avenues for other plotlines!

I think the Ratsucker example is pulling us off track, though. That was a conflict between the Environment (i.e. Staff) and the PC/NPC population. In my opinion that's the best kind of conflict; it's certainly been a lot more rewarding than PVP I've experienced. However, this thread is about how to start conflict between players, right?

[KankWhisperer]

I would tend to agree with this. I hate feeling that the only thing motivating me to join these plots is either willful ignorance or purely for OOC 'fun' reasons, or white knight syndrome, because there doesn't seem to be any upside for your group.

Not wanting your city overrun with monsters is a fairly compelling interest to most people, I'd imagine. Characters that try to shirk "Responsibility" like that should be held accountable by the powers that be - which opens up avenues for other plotlines!

Your city is not everyone's city.

[wizturbo]

The timing on this thread is sorta hilarious to me.

[Jeax]

You're welcome.

[Is Friday]

Just a comment toward those players that feel that they should be "involved in more plots", I would like to politely disagree.

Say I am playing Noble Lord Rennik who wants to poop all over Noble Lord Jal. Rennik (me) puts the word out that he's supplying everybody in the city with toilet paper that doesn't flush well in order to cause a problem for his rival Jal. Minions A, B, and C all tell their friends. Independents D, E, F hear the word and spread it to minions J & K, who work for Jal. Jal counters this toilet paper plot by creating a new "double-ply, EZ flush" toilet paper.

This is what happens with most plots, in my experience. The more people you involve, the more opportunity your plot opponents have to counter.

Using this silly yet applicable example should provide a decent explanation as to why leaders choose to only involve trusted minions as opposed to "anyone". Sure, some things are not necessary to keep secret. But I guarantee you if I have 3 or more minions for information gathering, I can figure out what Lord Jal is doing if I connect the dots on his activities.


Everybody wants plots. But nobody wants to play useful minions. 

[Nyr]

This is something we have done before.  This is something we'll continue to do where we see it as appropriate.  Not events that are based on moral decisions and values (because this is Zalanthas, and we're already turning moral decisions and values on their heads), but events that are based on tough decisions or regional Zalanthan values.  It's too bad you missed the Halloween plot or some of the other ones that have happened that weren't Ratsucker.

Okay~ I think I'm honestly missing all the fun then! 

Not a slight against you at all--it may simply mean it happened in a place you were not playing.  The nature of some plots are that they most involve the groups "closest" to them, and we want the info to leak IC in a smart IC way to other people that could get involved.  We don't want to see it leak OOC in a dumb OOC way.  That is one of the things that Talia is referring to, I believe.

One of the things that is probably most difficult about RPTs is the level of disconnectedness from them.  Rarely do you have something show up on your calendar that says, "be here at x time for something that you need to find out about secretly."  This is wholly different from real life, and the organizational structure of our boards before didn't use calendars.  We can use them now, though...we'll have to test it out and see how it can work.  Beyond the simple "calendar" aspect is the lack of connectedness to other events.  We don't link events to each other.  We don't usually hint that an RPT is a continuation of a previous RPT.  You can't know that the Ratsucker plot is going on until it is over unless you are playing and involved in it (we aren't going to call it "Ratsucker" or anything as a clickbait title, either).  You also wouldn't know for sure (except from staff hints) that there are staff-sponsored plots going on, or where they are.  There might be some ways to make this all better for our game's unique plot environment...if nothing else, I will be thinking on it.

[Barzalene]

I say what we need is those scary oh shit tribes from the past alive again.

I assert that the 'old days' had scary raiding tribes, yes, but that the PC population itself was just more prone to raiding.  In the 'opening stages' of my playing the game, I would say that roughly -half- of desert encounters were ending in conflict.  Either that person wanted to raid you, you decided to raid that person, or they needed something and would chase you down (scaring the shit out of you in the process) just to show they weren't hostile, but needed something from you.  Sometimes, you'd defend yourself pre-emptively.  Blackmoon raiders were around, and they were the big name, but by and large, the population of the game itself was more hostile in the wilderness, which I saw as fitting.  Cities are the bastions of relative safety compared to the wilderness.  Back then, you'd report a raider to a templar, and they wouldn't respond with their mages.  The Byn wouldn't get hired to deal with you.  Everyone would stare at you and be like 'Out in the sands?  The fuck makes you think that's my problem?'

I don't think we need clans opened or staff run plots for raiding to be more widely used.  We just need...people who are willing to base out of less populated centers that don't care, who are familiar enough with the game to feel comfortable traveling to raid.  Maybe I'll try (again) to get that rolling, soon.  Last time failed miserably.

Well, that and the sentiment is so strongly against "asshole" characters. Whenever I make assholes everyone is just SO OFFENDED that my mean, ugly, sunnovabitch didn't LOVE THEM!

To which I say, toughen up, buttercups.

I don't know about anyone else, but I appreciate your asshole characters. Even the ones I don't encounter. I appreciate that you're willing to play them.