Conflict: Striking a Balance

[Norcal]

quote author=Alesan link=topic=50061.msg911341#msg911341 date=1446826839]
I'm a relatively new player. I play because I have nothing better to do. Mostly I log on and hope for inspiration that never really comes. There's a lot of great roleplayers in the game but it's rare to see many of them gather in one place. I've seen peak hours top out at 40 players and the world seems empty and desolate of PCs. And then you guys want more places added to the game so there's even less PCs to be found. I have a feeling that even if the game world was restricted to Allanak, people would still be spread out in clans and apartments and it'd look very much the same as it does now.

Just idle thoughts.

Hmm. This got me to thinking.

I reckon we need more conflict in the game. Right now we have a unipolar status quo.  Not a lot of conflict happening  between GMH, nor a lot between the Noble Houses which is readily visible to the average Josephina Hunter.

I think the north needs to become more livable, more playable.  Yet we are spread out and Alesans post got me to thinking.  Why not create more conflict in a confined area, that could then spill over into the rest of the known? Civil war in Allanak and railroad a plot that forces the Noble Houses to choose sides.  Like the Red robe plot but bigger, more extensive. Grabbing territory out side of Allanak, making alliances with GMH.

Or Why not all of a sudden make Red Storm an ally of Tuluk, and Tuluki " consultants and trainers" All of a sudden show up in Red Strom, making it a more formidable foe, which starts to make territorial advances.

The GMH begin to fight amongst themselves. Some Noble Houses begin to imagine a future without His Shadow. Crews from different factions seek to secure hunting lands or access to some resources to the exclusion of other groups. Some things become rare and harder to find if you are not in the faction that controls those resources.

Indy players and tribals have a much harder time staying neutral.  

Anyway..as Alesan said..just idle thoughts.

[Riev]

Turning Allanak into two cities (flush out the 'rinth a bit?) would be a very dramatic and fun experience but I can't imagine the game world itself would allow for that without deus ex gryphons or something.

However, I do agree that there isn't really "built in" conflict other than scrabs and gith. Especially with Tuluk the way it is, maybe they could start trying to expand their influence again. Or the refugees of Tuluk have begun creating camps across the wilderness with their families and things they could bring with them. Who knows when you'll fall on the camp of the Precentor's Descendants?

Or. You know. Anything. Anything you could log in, and know "Well I'm a pickpocket, and we have always been at war with Oceania, so if I'm going to do anything I should target them".

[Dresan]

But Tuluk is an ally to Allanak. Allanak is at war with the redstorm, therefore Allanak has always been at war with Redstorm. Just like Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Well i wish we could do that but..

Unfortunately allanak is so big and its sorcerer king and his other virtual entities so freaking powerful that its really hard to come up with many scenarios where mundane actions or story-lines really matter in any believable fashion. Even the final battle in the HRPT seemed inconsequential to the hissy fit the powers of the world seemed to throw at each other.  

Now if they were gone, and allanak was instead run by a smaller council of red robes, who are still extremely powerful but not demi-gods, then I could see red-storm posing a bit more of a threat. Despite allanak size, forming an army against the entire village of redstorm, with their army of muls+magickers(you can bet they would suddenly be recruited in a time of great need), and powerful sorcerer (not a sorcerer king in this particular scenario, but at red robe level too) is quite a feat.  I'm not saying allanak couldn't win but the cost of resources would be a tremendous strain on allanak. This would also open them up to attacks from smaller enemies from other sides, other villages,tribes,creatures, not to mention from places inside its own walls like the rinth. If its weak enough even tuluk could come marching in.  

Allanak is filled with nothing but assholes, from a world perspective so many people, tribes and villages probably wouldn't mind seeing it gone, which should be something keeping the city on its toes on all times, but it has the all powerful sorcerer king to ensure none of that really matters that much.

[Jave]

Dresan addressed what I was going to say already. It's very difficult for us to build in on going conflict anywhere close to Allanak, because it's a super power.

The gith work in the table lands because they are roughly as powerful as the tribes that dwell there so small skirmishes can continue on for long periods of time with no winner declared.

The west side/east side 'rinthi gang situation is the same. It works because neither side has a clear leg up on the other.

When we introduce any kind of antagonistic conflict in the Allanak tri-city area the player base forms an army, marches out to destroy it, raze it to the ground, and salt the earth. -- And that's not really a bad thing. That's what a super power would do when it's be threatened so close to home.

So, short of resurrecting Stenial, there isn't a quick and easy way to give "Allanak at large" a place they can routinely go and lash out against.

[Riev]

When we introduce any kind of antagonistic conflict in the Allanak tri-city area the player base forms an army, marches out to destroy it, raze it to the ground, and salt the earth. -- And that's not really a bad thing. That's what a super power would do when it's be threatened so close to home.

Seen this happen first hand, but I would question whether its really because its "What Allanak would do" or "Oh my god something interesting lets all participate and feed off it".

I think part of the trouble is, when you log in for the first time, whether its a new player or just new PC, there's not like an automatic "Here's something you could probably be doing". In the very very few HRPTs we've had that focus around a war, you can know "When I log in, I can participate in the war. I might die, but this would be a cool story for my PC".

There's no automatic conflict that comes into play, and I don't know how I even feel about that. If there was a real "eternal struggle" then eventually nobody would care about it (think the 'rinth... really how often does that come up other than as flavor background?) If there was some long-lasting war with the gith finally being united under one banner and assaulting Allanak for CLEARLY causing Vrun Driath to become a wasteland, eventually people would consider gith like scrab. Sure, they're there, but nothing we do changes anything.

I think people either want to change things, or tell a story in which they were at least PART of the change. Too often this is limited to Sponsored roles (how many times did the Tuluki Templarate participate in RPTs when there were 3 PCs and it ended with like game changing stuff?)

[Norcal]

Dresan addressed what I was going to say already. It's very difficult for us to build in on going conflict anywhere close to Allanak, because it's a super power.

The gith work in the table lands because they are roughly as powerful as the tribes that dwell there so small skirmishes can continue on for long periods of time with no winner declared.

The west side/east side 'rinthi gang situation is the same. It works because neither side has a clear leg up on the other.

When we introduce any kind of antagonistic conflict in the Allanak tri-city area the player base forms an army, marches out to destroy it, raze it to the ground, and salt the earth. -- And that's not really a bad thing. That's what a super power would do when it's be threatened so close to home.

So, short of resurrecting Stenial, there isn't a quick and easy way to give "Allanak at large" a place they can routinely go and lash out against.

Rome was the super power of it's day. It was weakened by internal troubles and external pressures.  It could no longer project its power and slowly the empire fell apart. Allanak is strong because it can present a united front. What if Allanak itself were divided?  House X against House Y? What if the army was split into factions, as happened in the red robe plot? there were only a few neutral places one could go in the city. Then it would not be so easy to go out and squash a small city.  Especially if that city had some big backers.

Also what bout resources? What if Allanak cannot easily get some of the things it needs to maintain it's power?

There are lots of possibilities, and the game needs some conflict.

I am -against- the big HRPT lead your army out and fight mine type of conflict.  It should be much smaller scale, in terms of player to player interaction.

[Taven]

What if Allanak itself were divided?  House X against House Y? What if the army was split into factions, as happened in the red robe plot? there were only a few neutral places one could go in the city. Then it would not be so easy to go out and squash a small city.  Especially if that city had some big backers.

The Houses in Allanak are designed to have political friends and enemies, to stimulate conflict. It's up to players if they want to pursue that conflict or not. A good example, though non-Allanaki, of Houses set up to have conflict and PCs who hated each other would be good ol' Dragean Tenneshi and Raleris Winrothol. They actively hated each other. They'd kill each other's dudes, try to steal each other's shit, and mock each other. There was serious conflict. There's nothing that says this can't be done 'Nakki style.

Not every conflict can be as amped up as the red robe plot was, all of the time. If there's no contrast, things become meaningless.

[Dresan]

It still wouldn't matter as much because of the sorcerer king. The city, templars and everything else exist for his whims....otherwise the new location for the volcano would be the middle of allanak. If a noble house ever gets out of line well then all a black robe needs to do is take a stroll over to their estate and make it disappear. The sorcerer king rules with fear and terror, there has never been much point to oppose him, everyone who has tried has more or less failed.

This has been said before but the virtual power ceiling needs to come down.

If sorcerer kings and black robes went away(the same with everything godlike across the known) and the rulling party was a small council of red robes, picked from blue robes, who were picked from nobility then politics and conflict be a bit more believable. I think Red robes are plenty powerful enough together to try to maintain order through fear but at the same time the politics of the city would be important.

It would become a fine balance, that almost everyone in allanak would be conscious of. For example, gemmers would power the templars and be a source of valuable resources for the city, which would be just one of the reason for keeping their quarter. However they would need to be kept in check, which would be accomplished by the army and templar powers. The armies would be kept loyal by economics, which would be the balance in power of having nobility. The nobility in alliance at times with merchant houses(big and small) being the economic forces of the city. The army of course is produced by recruiting commoners who are needed along with slaves to keep the city going. Something like this would make room for alliances, power struggles and maybe even coups, but at the end of the day, everyone still needs each other. This is because without each other, without the red robes' protection, the army, the economy to support it and the gemmers, there are plenty of enemies out side who will come knocking at the gates like tuluk, gith, and who knows what else.

Allanak would still be immensely powerful but no longer seem invulnerable, especially during times of upheaval.  

This does not mean the staff is left without options involving powerful magicks either, just the IC consequences should be more visible to everyone. This isn't my idea, but its a good example of one possibility: imagine if every time the red robes needed to use a powerful magickal solution they needed a vast amount of life force. The amount of life needed being proportional to the feat they intend to pull off. What would the consequences be if the army raided the rinth, taking people by the hundreds if not thousands to sacrifice to feed the energy demands. There would probably be a backlash for a while at least. Especially if this involved more then just rinthers.

[Taven]

It would become a fine balance, that almost everyone in allanak would be conscious of. For example, gemmers would power the templars and be a source of valuable resources for the city, which would be just one of the reason for keeping their quarter. However they would need to be kept in check, which would be accomplished by the army and templar powers. The armies would be kept loyal by economics, which would be the balance in power of having nobility. The nobility in alliance at times with merchant houses(big and small) being the economic forces of the city. The army of course is produced by recruiting commoners who are needed along with slaves to keep the city going. Something like this would make room for alliances, power struggles and maybe even coups, but at the end of the day, everyone still needs each other...because without each other, without the red robes protections, the army, the economy and the gemmers, there are plenty of enemies out side who will come knocking at the gates like tuluk, gith, and who knows what else.

Doesn't this already all happen?

• Gemmers are a tool used by the templars for their power, to further their ends and control -- Check
• Gemmers are kept in check by the power templars hold over them -- Check
• Army recruits commoners to fill its ranks -- Check
• Soldiers paid coin to be kept loyal -- At least a partial check (economics gets sort of weird, there's PC economics and then virtual economics)
• Nobles and GMH having alliances -- Maybe not, actually (namely because GMH sell to everyone, so why limit yourself to being allied with 1 faction?)

I mean, I guess maybe there's less a feeling of OH GOD IF WE DON'T DO THIS WE'LL DIE, but in terms of what's actually happening, most of the things you're listing already do happen.

[Dresan]

The main difference is that in my scenario, things would need to happen like that, for mutual survival. Right now, if things are kinda happening like that, its still mostly from the whim of an all mighty sorcerer king.  That means that gemmers, army and nobility and commoners are nice to have, but hardly necessary in the great scheme of things.  From an IC point of view, Allanak could become another Stenial at any time.

Ultimately it just means that most conflict doesn't matter that much after a certain point. So why should nobles or anyone else really try. Again it just makes it harder to come up wth stories involving conflict that make sense or that can't be resolved with a wave of a finger.

Don't get me wrong, if sorcerer kings/black robes and others like them were to disappear, it wouldn't really change much for our characters individually, things would still be business as usual.  It just ICly increases the potential for city/world conflict. ICly people might begin to make more sense for people to dream a bit bigger and be more ambitious which might lead to more conflicts described by others here.

[Jave]

Seen this happen first hand, but I would question whether its really because its "What Allanak would do" or "Oh my god something interesting lets all participate and feed off it".

I don't think those motivations are mutually exclusive. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other, and sometimes it's a combination of both. It depends on the details.

[Taven]

The main difference is that in my scenario, things would need to happen like that, for mutual survival. Right now, if things are kinda happening like that, its still mostly from the whim of an all mighty sorcerer king.  That means that gemmers, army and nobility and commoners are nice to have, but hardly necessary in the great scheme of things.  From an IC point of view, Allanak could become another Stenial at any time.

I'm going to go on a tangent. There are two major sorts of plots that had be had when looking at a city state. There's Internal and External.

With an Internal Plot, you have factions within a city fighting among themselves. This could be Noble factions, Merchant factions, Crime/Law factions, racial factions, or locational factions. This directly puts players into conflict with other players.

There's two main positions I feel like people have, from our many, many GDB posts about it lately:

• People could feel that there's not enough for factions to fight over, and wish staff assistance in giving a lure

-OR-

• People don't actually want to have internal conflict

Continuing on, there's also External Plots which arise from things outside of the city or area. It's something that a large group of people can fight. Examples include spiders, spiders, more spiders, the gith invasion, numerous CLASSIFIED AoD trips, and so on. The benefit to this is that players can all work together, unified, against an outside (usually NPC) threat.

Given a lot of the suggestions, it feels to me like what a lot of players here want is more external conflict, rather then internal. External conflict is generally easier (for players), because all of the opponents are usually NPCs (putting a lot of the work on staff).


Neither conflict type is bad, but a healthy game will have both. I usually feel like a lot of players are avoiding internal conflict, because they ignore their subgroups in favor of Getting Stuff and Accomplishing Things (tm). But maybe that's just me.

[titansfan]

I think the game would be better without god kings ruling the cities. They should get trapped in a sort of prison of extremely powerful magicks. Then the cities remaining fight for themselves. God, the topsy turny nature of all that would be awesome.

[Riev]

I think the game would be better without god kings ruling the cities. They should get trapped in a sort of prison of extremely powerful magicks. Then the cities remaining fight for themselves. God, the topsy turny nature of all that would be awesome.

Generally, the God Kings of either City State are too busy to participate in most things, as they are preoccupied with something else. Except Muk, that guy has a boner for people worshipping him. The trouble is all the politics of the "not quite-a-god-kings" like black robes and high precentors that aren't preoccupied with 'the thing' and are more focused on other things.

Sure, we could do some of the things suggested, but its hard to derive OOC motivation when you've seen the "someone in a virtual position, that you've never seen, and you can never be on an even playing field with, says no".

[nauta]

Given a lot of the suggestions, it feels to me like what a lot of players here want is more external conflict, rather then internal. External conflict is generally easier (for players), because all of the opponents are usually NPCs (putting a lot of the work on staff).

I love the distinction between internal/external.  Just to pitch in on it, I think external conflicts have this nice effect of trickling down and feeding into our roleplay and the internal conflict stuff.  For instance, one member in the clan might be keen on helping out in eliminating spider threat #2015 whereas another member might not, or one clan might want to help but not if another clan is involved, etc. etc.

I think one thing I at least would like to see is an 'intelligent' external threat, e.g., Tulukis, the Sandland, etc.  A threat where we have to plan, not just grind, and collaborate (and thus betray and corrupt) in overcoming.

We might not have to open Tuluk back up to do this -- rather we could offer selected role calls for the Sandlord Thugs or the Tuluki Magewankers or whatever now and then, or, perhaps, have a mostly permanent clan whose role and modus operandi it is to be antagonistic to Allanaki citizens.  I think the various tribes in the tribal lands have a nice structure here (their only problem was population density): the various human and elf tribes are antagonistic to each other, and that is built into the documentation (or at least it's not contrary to documentation).  Tuluk/Allanak have this too, but with one being virtual, the threat requires (more) staff intervention to make it alive.

The goal isn't PC-to-PC conflict, but rather to make a threat feel real, a threat new PCs can, knowing nothing else, recognize and incorporate into their roleplay.

As a personal anecdote, when I first started playing about a year and a half ago, the Tuluk/Allanak war was a big deal.  I wasn't involved in the AoD or any of the conflict, but the energy and feeling of it trickled down -- the conflict was palpable -- there were patriotic songs at the bar, various sub-groups and secret factions, etc., that bled into all aspects of my experience.  I didn't know anything as a newbie back then but the one thing I knew is that if I could help out and kill a Tuluki and get their hand, I'd be doing something good for the city.

[Taven]

I think one thing I at least would like to see is an 'intelligent' external threat, e.g., Tulukis, the Sandland, etc.  A threat where we have to plan, not just grind, and collaborate (and thus betray and corrupt) in overcoming.

[...]

As a personal anecdote, when I first started playing about a year and a half ago, the Tuluk/Allanak war was a big deal.  I wasn't involved in the AoD or any of the conflict, but the energy and feeling of it trickled down -- the conflict was palpable -- there were patriotic songs at the bar, various sub-groups and secret factions, etc., that bled into all aspects of my experience.  I didn't know anything as a newbie back then but the one thing I knew is that if I could help out and kill a Tuluki and get their hand, I'd be doing something good for the city.

A lot of the suggestions in this thread are about how Tuluk was a great antagonist, and for proposals to make either the north more playable, more of a threat, or make something instead of Tuluk that could fill a similar role.

I have two main thoughts about this.

My first thought is about Tuluk itself. A lot of the suggestions want Tuluk as the big bad antagonist, and that's fine. But at the same time, it was its own entity. It had its own nobles, its own factions, and its own goals and desires. It had its own unique flavor and was a distinct place that wasn't Allanak. Unfortunately, there are some people that have a die-hard OOC bias against playing there, despite everything. I personally think closing Tuluk was a shame, and that the choice should be reconsidered.

My second thought is that with stated staff goals ("consolidate!"), they're probably unlikely to focus on expanding a multi-faceted area like Tuluk. Numerous factions take staff time and effort. However, I think it's certainly possible for them to focus on other areas (Storm, Luirs, Tribes, whatever) and make a source of conflict that is largely one group within itself, to represent going against Allanak, or being a threat.

My final thought, which jumps back to Tuluk, is that players often want to "win" rather then promote long-term conflict. I generally think of the plot surrounding "let's go cut off northern hands" as one of those plots. Why? Because virtually, Tuluk is as big as Allanak. Virtually, it has the same number of people, and sending in people to kill loggers or those silly enough to go out alone is probably extremely risky--For them. Except it requires staff to be there and be animating. Reality is that Tuluk just has less PCs, so having someone come and murder everyone repeatedly is not all that exciting. There was also some ignoring of NPCs and other ridiculousness there.

How does that relate to general plots? Try something different then just instant murder, especially if there's virtual considerations. Consider the corruption and betrayal aspects of the game. Consider how to make a plot more fulfilling that way. Instead of just killing all the PC representatives of a clan, consider how to use them or use other means to get at the virtual source of the problem.

[nauta]

I agree with a lot of what you say, of course.

My final thought, which jumps back to Tuluk, is that players often want to "win" rather then promote long-term conflict. I generally think of the plot surrounding "let's go cut off northern hands" as one of those plots. Why? Because virtually, Tuluk is as big as Allanak. Virtually, it has the same number of people, and sending in people to kill loggers or those silly enough to go out alone is probably extremely risky--For them. Except it requires staff to be there and be animating. Reality is that Tuluk just has less PCs, so having someone come and murder everyone repeatedly is not all that exciting. There was also some ignoring of NPCs and other ridiculousness there.

How does that relate to general plots? Try something different then just instant murder, especially if there's virtual considerations. Consider the corruption and betrayal aspects of the game. Consider how to make a plot more fulfilling that way. Instead of just killing all the PC representatives of a clan, consider how to use them or use other means to get at the virtual source of the problem.

I think some players want to win -- there are different player types -- that is, some players want to PK and love the rush of the chase and PC-to-PC combat out in the field against an enemy that is known.  (Maybe they don't even want to PK, they just want to have a nice bit of PC-to-PC combat that has some virtual motivation to it.  A lot of conflict feels... ad hoc in a way I can't put my finger on it nowadays.)  

But I also think the numbers there are probably smaller than you might think, and the net benefit might be more than you might be suggesting for the rest of the playerbase.  I can back down on that particular example, as I don't know what happened on the ground, so to speak, but my basic view is that external conflict -- the antagonist -- should not just be virtual but should have a real PC element to it.  It doesn't have to be the size of an entire city state with nobles and so on, but there should be at least some PCs.  This makes things, I think, more palpable for the rest of the playerbase back in Allanak, knowing that there are other PCs out there plotting and planning -- a real not-entirely-staff intelligence.  Obviously, nobody thought you could win the war against Tuluk, but the possibility was inspiring, and I think that generated a lot of the vibe in Allanak.  My 2 cents.

ETA: It also gave new players something they could immediately understand, an immediate motivation and inspiration to their PCs, even if they never join a clan.  I'm Allanak.  There's this big intelligent external threat out there that I can worry about, that defines me in part, that I can get involved in, even if I never actually leave the gates.

[sleepyhead]

I think one thing you're missing here, Taven, is that seeing Tuluk as the "big bad" was fun for Allanakis, but also seeing Allanak as the "big bad" was (presumably) fun for Tulukis. So it goes both ways. It would be the same problem if Allanak had been the one being closed. Sure, the way people are phrasing it is typically very Allanak-centric, but it's really the same story no matter which city you play in.

[Taven]

[M]y basic view is that external conflict -- the antagonist -- should not just be virtual but should have a real PC element to it.  It doesn't have to be the size of an entire city state with nobles and so on, but there should be at least some PCs.  This makes things, I think, more palpable for the rest of the playerbase back in Allanak, knowing that there are other PCs out there plotting and planning -- a real not-entirely-staff intelligence.  Obviously, nobody thought you could win the war against Tuluk, but the possibility was inspiring, and I think that generated a lot of the vibe in Allanak.  My 2 cents.

I agree with a lot of your underlying thoughts here. External plots give you something out there to focus on, a large goal, and they can generate a lot of plots and motivations if people push them in the right direction and follow through on it. It presents a great opportunity to get people excited, and involve a lot of people in numerous ways.

Here's some examples of things that various roles could do in a war-like scenario.

Gemmers		Scout work prep before hand, or fighting in battles
Aides		Assist in coordination various projects, suggest new ways to harass the enemy to their noble
Merchants		Make weapons, armor, or supporting goods for the soldiers
Entertainers		Inspire people about how you're the best and the other city sucks
Wilderness-worthy types		Go on various scouting missions, get a lay of the land
Sneaky types		Infiltrate the enemy, be in key positions to betray when the time comes, relay intel
Soldiers		Fight, go on preliminary missions, etc
Nobles		Use your House's assets to best contribute and further your own strength/position

The problem is ultimately that at some point in a war, there has to be massive combat. Arm's combat system is largely horrific for this. Mind you, I didn't mind mass combat in the Gith War, but that was PC vs NPC, largely. PC vs PC is mostly lots of people dying dissatisfying deaths based on who can gang up on one person fastest.

But yes, a war or external threat can be great motivation as a whole. It can also be more accessible.


For Internal Plots, you usually have to wait longer to see them. They're not as obvious. You have to be in a clan, have skills that clan wants, and be trusted by leadership to either take their plot and pursue it, or for them to accept your plot and run with it.

But there's a lot of various internal plots that can be done, too, with similar possibilities for involving people.

Gemmers		Typically an Oash resource; useful for scouting, getting info, killing things, or retrieval of stuff
Aides		Assist in coordination, work on collecting and controlling information for your employer
Merchants		Usable by others for their MCs, flexibility in what they want to be involved in, possible MMH goals
Entertainers		Oft utilized by Fale. Good for general RPTs, keeping the city active, and making a particular clan look appealing
Wilderness-worthy types		Hireable for scouting missions, exploring, retrieval, and other similar
Sneaky types		Versatile utility. Good for theft, assassination, infiltration, smuggling, etc.
Soldiers		Templar resource, best used to kill shit. Also possibilities for internal corruption, bribery, etc.
Nobles		Utilize House assets. Make alliances, betray people, try to accomplish specific plots and goals.

The thing about Internal Plots is that there are PC minds behind it. But internal plots suffer their own challenges. The biggest challenge with internal plots is finding people to rely on that can help you pursue them.


So, there's two main points with internal plots:

First, there's the challenges of the person running the plot. People get bored too easily. They want to be involved NOW. Generally, there's not a reason to get someone involved NOW. You're some nobody. How do I know you're not working for Lord Villainfoil? Even if you're not, how do I know you're not going to blab my plans everywhere? So as a leader or plot runner, I have to wait for competent PCs to come to me, who I can use, who I know are loyal. That takes time and waiting. Typically, leaders will have multiple plots in mind at any given time, so that when one stalls, they can work on another one.

Secondly, there's the challenges of the people who want to be in plots. They're there, waiting to be involved in plots! So why isn't anyone approaching them? Okay, I joined clan X, why isn't anything happening? Sometimes it feels like you've been somewhere a long time, and you're still not trusted, or there's still nothing going on. Or maybe, there is stuff going on, but you just feel like you're not going to be involved in it at all. My suggestion to people in this spot is make your own suggestions and find your own small plots to run.

Leaders get tired of having to do the work and plot generating all of the time. If you have small ideas for things to do that make sense for their position, they're generally thrilled to support you. The trick is not reaching too high too fast, but building the relationship. Remember, the more you show them that you want to support their goals, the more they're going to realize that they can trust you and get you involved in their own plots.

[Norcal]

We already have a lot of possibilities for external conflict with NPCS.  Gith, mantis..spiders, or just hunting.

We have very few options for external conflict with players.  I suppose you could roll up an indy raider.  Yet you would not last long, and I am not real sure how staff would feel about that.

We used to have a raiding clan..and before my time more than one.  The last one was shut a few years ago..wiped out like the halflings.  The message that sends is that the game wants to move away from that sort of thing. Yet conflict is an important part of RP, it is a catalyst. In many cases you need it.

So what is left?

Some players join clans with the -ooc- idea from the start- to create conflict within the clan. Number one, that is a poor motive for joining a clan. Number two it rarely provides any fun except for the player creating the conflict. Number three..it is super easy and short lived.

Tuluk was closed for OOC reasons.  In a game which has at its heart, two city states, white and black, contrasting lifestyles, politics and culture..this created a tremendous IC imbalance. Yet even without Tuluk closing, the game was becoming static.

I agree that the Tuluki hands plot was unrealistic because it ignored much of the virtual world.  Yet it was a cool plot!  And it underlines the problem; The players and in fact the game itself have become slaves to the virtual world.  

We can no longer move or act or plot because we are heavily limited by the virtual, by the documents and the status quo, much of which was set up for a larger player base in a time gone by.

So, how to get around that?  I do not think it is possible without both internal and external conflict feeding off of each other.  Done in a way that will use the world that exists..yet still keep some concentration of players.

Now, I know that some of the wonderful folks on staff are working hard like little north pole elves to come up with some new stuff.  Perhaps some of my concerns will be addressed by what they bring forth.  Yet in the mean time...we need some conflict.

[Taven]

I think one thing you're missing here, Taven, is that seeing Tuluk as the "big bad" was fun for Allanakis, but also seeing Allanak as the "big bad" was (presumably) fun for Tulukis. So it goes both ways. It would be the same problem if Allanak had been the one being closed. Sure, the way people are phrasing it is typically very Allanak-centric, but it's really the same story no matter which city you play in.

Trust me, that's not a point I'm missing. Unfortunately, it doesn't have much bearing on the overall discussion. The way people are phrasing everything is Allanak-centric, because probably 90% of the playerbase is in Allanak. Everything I'm taking about internal plots and external plots is something that would also apply to Tuluk, if it was actually open.

[nauta]

Yep, yep, all very good points, as usual.

[M]y basic view is that external conflict -- the antagonist -- should not just be virtual but should have a real PC element to it.  It doesn't have to be the size of an entire city state with nobles and so on, but there should be at least some PCs.  This makes things, I think, more palpable for the rest of the playerbase back in Allanak, knowing that there are other PCs out there plotting and planning -- a real not-entirely-staff intelligence.  Obviously, nobody thought you could win the war against Tuluk, but the possibility was inspiring, and I think that generated a lot of the vibe in Allanak.  My 2 cents.

I agree with a lot of your underlying thoughts here. External plots give you something out there to focus on, a large goal, and they can generate a lot of plots and motivations if people push them in the right direction and follow through on it. It presents a great opportunity to get people excited, and involve a lot of people in numerous ways.

Moreover, external conflict plots (the 'big' plot so to say) give new PCs fresh out of chargen who might not be in a clan something real that might inspire them and motivate them.

The problem is ultimately that at some point in a war, there has to be massive combat. Arm's combat system is largely horrific for this. Mind you, I didn't mind mass combat in the Gith War, but that was PC vs NPC, largely. PC vs PC is mostly lots of people dying dissatisfying deaths based on who can gang up on one person fastest.

I guess I'm inclined to disagree here.  First, does there have to be a 'massive combat', or can it all be played out in terms of little skirmishes between PCs on an individual basis, coupled with virtual transactions or battles with NPCs, e.g., burning down the fields, Ten Serak, etc.?  I agree there's potential for abuse in almost any situation, but I'm a bit worried that you've tossed the baby out with the bathwater: we've gotten rid of external conflict in order to cut down on a few abusers.

One idea I had just now is perhaps we could have the 'badguy group clan', or 'badguy group of the year clan', which might rotate (or have several of them running at once).  I do think the 'bad guys' need staff support, but I think they shouldn't just be staff.

[Taven]

I agree that the Tuluki hands plot was unrealistic because it ignored much of the virtual world.  Yet it was a cool plot!  And it underlines the problem; The players and in fact the game itself have become slaves to the virtual world. We can no longer move or act or plot because we are heavily limited by the virtual, by the documents and the status quo, much of which was set up for a larger player base in a time gone by

I don't think it was that cool of a plot. If you just want to go out and kill something, why not have it be staff-animated NPCs? What's the point of repeatedly killing all the PC representatives in an area?

You know what WOULD have been cool? If people had actually taken virtual considerations into account.

Here's how that plot could have gone:

• The goal is to harass and kill Tuluki. Staff is approached about it, and the player indicates a goal of killing larger Tuluki groups--Great examples would be trade caravans to and from Luirs
• Gemmer or rangers, perhaps the byn, is utilized in scouting the area, finding times when trade caravans go through, analyzing the times
• Sneaky or infiltration types are hired to go into Tuluk, and learn more about what's happening--Specifically, get in place to be able to monitor the Tuluki response, if all goes well
• The south assesses Kurac and Luirs. How do they want to involve them? Is it best to ignore them, or bribe them into looking the other way? If they try the latter, do they warn Tuluk?
• All the pieces are in place, staff has written the poor NPCs who are going to be targeted. The south makes its move!

So what happens for the actual event? Two possibilities:

• Allanak successfully totally annihilates the caravan, leaving the smoldering ruins and severed heads as a blatant slap in the face to Tuluk

-OR-

• One of the NPCs escapes, frantically waying for help from Tuluk, who goes and engages in combat with Allanak, trying to save the caravan

What happens after that?

• Tuluk now has to address the issue of the caravan being killed or assaulted
• They can involve Kurac to try and have them assist in patroling the routes, if they want, or try to determine if Kurac was in on it
• They can either take a preventative approach, or try to engage in counter attacks against Allanak
• If preventative, it involves setting up more patrols for Tuluki soldiers, possibly hiring the byn as well
• If aggressive, they can engage in some of the same steps Allanak did previously, but more tailored to their specific counter-reaction

So that took maybe ten minutes for me to write up a plot that doesn't involve ignoring the virtual world to murder the shit out of PCs unrealistically, but using the virtual world actually helped generate conflict. Did it need staff assistance and support? Yes. Would staff invest the time if they thought this many players could benefit from a plot? I'd sure like to think so.

[nauta]

Would staff invest the time if they thought this many players could benefit from a plot? I'd sure like to think so.

I guess I'd like to find a way to have external conflict without requiring staff involvement.  (ETA: Staff support, sure, like usual support for PC-driven events; and also staff would be required to step in and give yellow flags to those who ignore the virtual world or whatever via the normal player complaint process.)

[Taven]

I guess I'm inclined to disagree here.  First, does there have to be a 'massive combat', or can it all be played out in terms of little skirmishes between PCs on an individual basis, coupled with virtual transactions or battles with NPCs, e.g., burning down the fields, Ten Serak, etc.?  I agree there's potential for abuse in almost any situation, but I'm a bit worried that you've tossed the baby out with the bathwater: we've gotten rid of external conflict in order to cut down on a few abusers.

Thoughts on this:

• Yes, burning down the Tuluki cotton fields was a neat plot for Allanak, and generated Tuluki opportunities for a response. Awesome stuff.
• Ten Serak, to my knowledge, only had Allanaki NPCs, which Tuluk wiped the floor with.

I think prolonged conflict and the mini-plots that external conflict can generate are good. Burning shit around Tuluk? Absolutely go for that, yes. However, in the ultimate long run, someone has to "win". This isn't just because players want to win, but because if you have a conflict that drags on forever, people eventually stop caring about it, and it ceases to have meaning. Usually "winning" involved a combat finale.

One idea I had just now is perhaps we could have the 'badguy group clan', or 'badguy group of the year clan', which might rotate (or have several of them running at once).  I do think the 'bad guys' need staff support, but I think they shouldn't just be staff.

I like the idea of conflict with a source that isn't primarily staff. And I agree that scale can be an issue sometimes.

I'd also like to say a cautionary word here. It doesn't directly correlate to your ideas, but it does tie back into some of the thoughts of having players as supported roles by staff, as antagonists. That's not an idea I wholly disapprove of, by the way, I can see the merits. But I also believe there's things that can go wrong.

My example for this is Tyn Dashra.

A couple sponsored roles infiltrated Tuluk, rose to positions of power despite being spies, and proceeded to do Terrible Things (tm). My issue is NOT with the players of those roles, who I believe did wonderfully. My issue is that this type of role felt like it was something PCs could never do on their own, and regardless of the truth of it, also felt like it ignored the virtual world. If you're in the same room as the most powerful Tuluki NPCs in the city (maybe even Muk Utep), and they some how do not realize you're a spy, what with who they are... I feel like something has gone horrifically wrong.

So, what can we learn from this? A couple things.

• Players need to feel like a plot is realistic for the area its in, with limitations set on them being set on special antagonist roles as well
• Players probably would like to feel that whatever the antagonist is doing, it would be possible for them to do

The best thing, in my opinion, is actually setting up a clan to be an antagonist, or just making it easier for would-be antagonists to exist, from a PC standpoint. Otherwise, IMHO, the conflict has the very real risk of seeming stale and unreal.

[Taven]

Would staff invest the time if they thought this many players could benefit from a plot? I'd sure like to think so.

I guess I'd like to find a way to have external conflict without requiring staff involvement.  (ETA: Staff support, sure, like usual support for PC-driven events; and also staff would be required to step in and give yellow flags to those who ignore the virtual world or whatever via the normal player complaint process.)

I have a hard time imagining an external conflict that doesn't have staff involvement.

Could you think of a few possible examples to illustrate what you mean a little better?

[nauta]

We're on the same page, yeah.  Just two points I want to emphasize:

I think prolonged conflict and the mini-plots that external conflict can generate are good. Burning shit around Tuluk? Absolutely go for that, yes. However, in the ultimate long run, someone has to "win". This isn't just because players want to win, but because if you have a conflict that drags on forever, people eventually stop caring about it, and it ceases to have meaning. Usually "winning" involved a combat finale.

It's not so much about winning, a lot of our PCs will die in battle and never know what happened.  It's more about the possibility of winning.  That's point one.

Point two is to go back up to what started this off: external conflict (that involve PCs, IMHO) is something that will be good for new players.  I started in late 2013/early 2014, and while the Tuluk/Allanak thing might have been stale to vets, it was very real to me as a new player.  And it's not just new players, it's new characters out of chargen: they don't have to wait for the 'internal conflict' plot of a clan to get a real sense of something inspiring to do (they can ignore it or not, that's fine): but the idea that there is an enemy at the gates, a real intelligent enemy driven by PCs with some virtual world backing them (i.e., not raider-of-the-week)... that's the idea I'm going for.

I have a hard time imagining an external conflict that doesn't have staff involvement.

Could you think of a few possible examples to illustrate what you mean a little better?

Well, I said what I want is external conflict that doesn't require staff involvement, over and above the regular (enforcement), and setting up the initial parameters (documentation about the virtual world).  I think what makes external conflict feel a bit stale is that, in your example, all the enemy there is entirely virtual -- maybe you meant the example to be when Tuluk was open, in which case it makes a lot more sense.  But nowadays, that entire scenario would involve staff as the enemy with no PCs.  That's a lot of work for staff, and likely would only happen now and then, with a lot of potential for cries of 'railroading' or, even worse, the butthurt from being tossed down by staff (when a PC slays your PC, you are kinda ok with it; when staff slays your PC, you are kinda less ok with it).

So, an example.  Here's some, off the top of my head, just to give a feel for it:

The Tuluki Expatriots.  This is a clan.  You can role up a PC inside it.  They have a compound that's pretty hidden, which has NPC guards, maybe even a small battalion, perhaps some virtual backing from a few ex-patriot Tuluki templars, etc. -- large enough to be a bona fide threat to Allanak, but small enough that it doesn't require too much staff overhead or too heavy of a PC population inside it, so that the antagonist PCs can make decisions that will affect things, and also so that they won't get stomped easily.

Tuluk minus everything else but the army.  Again, you'd play in a clan -- the Legion -- but that's all that would be open in Tuluk.

Mean Desert Elves.  Again, a clan.

Mul slaves

The Sandlord

And so on.

The rough idea is that

(a) the players that roll up PCs inside the clan know what they are getting into;

(b) there is staff support for the clan: documentation that makes them an actual threat and gives them a virtual presence; a clan board and all its benefits; perhaps a rough storyline for them to flesh out as PCs, and so on; some ground rules to let the PCs know that their role is to be antagonists and not griefers (karma restricted, let's say); etc.

(c) the threat would be one felt on all levels inside Allanak, new players and old players, indies and clanned (not just a given clan (AoD));

You could rotate out different ones, change focus, and so on -- tie this into Lauramars' idea from the player retention thread of multiple bad guys and so on.

[Dresan]

First of all, if there are people who don't want to see internal plots here on the GDB, i haven't seen them. What I have seen is people commenting on why most internal conflicts wouldn't make sense in the current setting.

Secondly, its taking the virtual world into account that is usually the biggest obstacles in almost any plot these days because of how high the virtual power ceiling actually is. Lets go back and take a look at the spy plot.

This was an excellent and fun plot overall, but it was done in a city with a sorcerer king who's mind-bending abilities still comes second to the fact that he can also see the future. This isn't even mentioning the templars that served him at the time.  Again an excellent and fun plot, that didn't make any sense whatsoever until Nyr came out and said, something to the effect that; yes, all virtual factors were taken into account and countered somehow. Well then I guess I need to take his word for it, and I have to suspend my utter disbelief or just try make sense of it somehow, maybe Muk wanted this to happen? No idea, the people in better positions to question ICly were as confused as I was I think.

This was very jarring to me, and along with other changes I eventually didn't want to play in Tuluk. Again story-lines and plots are the meat and potatoes of this game, they need to make some sense at least for me.

The ridiculous virtual power levels prevents many cool epic story-lines that actually make sense. Ultimately the end of every plot/conflict is basically the same, the red robes, black robes or sorcerers king takes notice, waves their fingers effortlessly and everything gets fixed and/or someone finds themselves falling into a deep hole. Everything returns to normal. The end. Some people here have argued that they are often too busy doing other things to notice, but sometimes the are not, sometimes they can do X, sometimes they can change Y. There is really no limit to what they can do, or interfere with, they can pretty much do whatever staff needs them to do, whenever staff needs them to do it.

And this is what is really sad, that the few times it has not work this way, it becomes hard to suspend disbelief or at worse, it feels like it is either staff oversight and/or favoritism for the character(s) attempting to accomplish something.

There is a reason why they've been trying to tone down superman in recent years too, give him more weakness then just kryptonite. His latest power, having the consequence of practically making him a regular human for time. No longer do you see him sneezing and sending entire planets out of orbit. How good you think a batman vs. superman movie, if superman still had the power to punch an entire planet to tiny bits without even a scratch on his fist? It would be silly at best.

Its the same thing with this game, the virtual powers are so damn strong that it makes almost everything that happens or that we do irrelevant. There is never really a sense of urgency for anything or there are never any real threats. Sure you can still fight for some of the crumbs left but a lot others have already won those crumbs too. It just ends up feeling stupid for anyone to ICly cause anymore conflict or problems beyond killing the person who stared at your boyfriend too long.  

[Taven]

It's not so much about winning, a lot of our PCs will die in battle and never know what happened.  It's more about the possibility of winning.  That's point one.

I think that the possibility, ICly, of winning is important. I'm on the same page as you there. However, I also think that OOCly, there's just a culture of wanting to win, period. It's the latter that I dislike and think is unhealthy for the game.

Point two is to go back up to what started this off: external conflict (that involve PCs, IMHO) is something that will be good for new players.  I started in late 2013/early 2014, and while the Tuluk/Allanak thing might have been stale to vets, it was very real to me as a new player.  And it's not just new players, its new characters out of chargen: they don't have to wait for the 'internal conflict' plot of a clan to get a real sense of something inspiring to do (they can ignore it or not, that's fine): but the idea that there is an enemy at the gates, a real intelligent enemy driven by PCs with some virtual world backing them so they aren't raider-of-the-week... that's the idea I'm going for.

I like this idea in general. I think it's worth trying for. I also think that players have a habit of ignoring the virtual world or other impacts to just try to ROFL-stomp things into the ground, which is what I strongly dislike.

The rough idea is that

(a) the players that role up PCs inside the clan know what they are getting into;

(b) there is staff support for the clan: documentation that makes them an actual threat and gives them a virtual presence; a clan board and all its benefits; perhaps a rough storyline for them to flesh out as PCs, and so on; some ground rules to let the PCs know that their role is to be antagonists and not griefers (karma restricted, let's say); etc.

(c) the threat would be one felt on all levels inside Allanak, not just a given clan (AoD);

You could rotate out different ones, change focus, and so on -- tie this into Lauramars' idea from the player retention thread of multiple bad guys and so on.

I agree with the general premise, and like the general idea. All the goals you've outlined with this are good, adding to player conflict is good.

Repeating myself a bit, I just worry that you can't have a threat to everyone active all the time. It does have perks--But it also needs to be balanced out by breaks, or a focus more on internal plots. Otherwise, it's just "oh, another big large threat". If that makes sense.

[Taven]

Well, I said what I want is external conflict that doesn't require staff involvement, over and above the regular (enforcement), and setting up the initial parameters (documentation about the virtual world).  I think what makes external conflict feel a bit stale is that, in your example, all the enemy there is entirely virtual -- maybe you meant the example to be when Tuluk was open, in which case it makes a lot more sense.  But nowadays, that entire scenario would involve staff as the enemy with no PCs.  That's a lot of work for staff, and likely would only happen now and then, with a lot of potential for cries of 'railroading' or, even worse, the butthurt from being tossed down by staff (when a PC slays your PC, you are kinda ok with it; when staff slays your PC, you are kinda less ok with it).

My example in this post is how the "Tuluki Hands" plot could have been handled differently--Tuluk was open at this time. If Tuluk had only been a staff entity, it wouldn't have nearly as fun possibilities. I agree that the good part of the conflict is when PCs are brainstorming against other PCs.

My example in this post is also from when Tuluk was open. I think the idea was to have staff-sponsored PCs generate potential conflict and excitement for Tuluki PCs. I think the reality was really that most of what they did was secret (again, not against the players, who had wonderful PCs that were well played), so it didn't really generate any extra excitement. Mostly, it was just an "ah-hah! We have done this!" moment. And then for Tuluk, largely a "what the fuck" moment. Nothing really ultimately came of it besides staff-pushed effects (bye bye Hlum), because Tuluki PCs were told by NPCs in power "shhh this never happened". Could Tuluki PCs have decided to rebel against that and do something anyways? Maybe. It still felt stale.

So, an example.  Here's some, off the top of my head, just to give a feel for it: [stuff]

Alright. So let's take a step back and talk about other Types of Conflict.

There's two main ones that immediately come to mind: Overt and Covert.


Overt conflict is something like raiding, killing spiders, smashing in faces, and so on.

Covert conflict is something that is more subtle. Use of spies, scouting, planning, to ultimately take an action. It's less obvious.

The best conflict is both.


In my example, there was a lot of steps taken by Allanak that were covert. This would be the "prep work". Ultimately, it lead to an overt action--The assault on the caravan.

When talking about player antagonists, I worry about both sides being too overt. It's really easy to just murder all the PCs in a particular group, and ignore the virtual world. Typically, you're either going to have action that is too overt (trying to ROFL-stomp the clan out of existence), very covert (which a lot of players might not see), or some mix. Usually, mixes require staff support.

You also want staff support, so we're not in disagreement there. Your goal (or even the general goal) is to have players be able to plot and do things without staff around all the time. I think a clan would allow for that. I also think that any "large" actions usually require staff support (because they usually need to take the virtual world into account or want to make a lasting change, and that's what staff is for).


Basically, what you should take away from this post is that I think player "antagonist" clans could be interesting. I think they're only interesting if player behave realistically and think long term and outside of the box, rather then trying to use extreme overt action to pursue the OOC version of the desire to win. I also believe that while it would allow players to do something without staff, ultimately staff support is vital.

[nauta]

Repeating myself a bit, I just worry that you can't have a threat to everyone active all the time. It does have perks--But it also needs to be balanced out by breaks, or a focus more on internal plots. Otherwise, it's just "oh, another big large threat". If that makes sense.

Yeah, we're on the same page about the rough idea. 

One thing:

Can you spell out this worry a bit more?  I'm having a hard time appreciating it.  Let me give you an example: in the rinth, there is westside and eastside conflict going on all the time -- it's nice, it's part of the background noise, gives you something to define your character by, etc.  I actually think it's a really good thing to have a background credible threat cranking away, maybe two or three of them.

But was it all just hack-and-slash conflict?  Not at all.  There were massive lulls, and that was partly natural and partly enforced by the people roleplaying in the rinth: sometimes populations on one side of the conflict or the other were small (natural lull), sometimes there were 'cold war style' treaties, sometimes there were third threats (southside) that unified the two groups, and so on.  (ETA: there was also the covert and overt style conflict you mention -- nice distinction by the way.)

Dresan's point is pretty pertinent here too: Allanak is just too damn powerful to really come up with very many credible threats (other than Tuluk).  We might consider making Allanak a little less virtually powerful, with Tuluk's demise (that is, with its becoming non-playable).  Just a thought.

[Taven]

First of all, if there are people who don't want to see internal plots here on the GDB, i haven't seen them. What I have seen is people commenting on why most internal conflicts wouldn't make sense in the current setting.

When you say "internal conflicts wouldn't make sense in the current setting", what is it you actually mean? Because I don't get it.

I can get how having something to add to internal conflict would be good, I can see how internal conflict is less immediately accessible, but I really don't get what you say when it "doesn't make sense in the current setting".

The ridiculous virtual power levels prevents many cool epic story-lines that actually make sense. Ultimately the end of every plot/conflict is basically the same, the red robes, black robes or sorcerers king takes notice, waves their fingers effortlessly and everything gets fixed and/or someone finds themselves falling into a deep hole. Everything returns to normal. The end. Some people here have argued that they are often too busy doing other things to notice, but sometimes the are not, sometimes they can do X, sometimes they can change Y. There is really no limit to what they can do, or interfere with, they can pretty much do whatever staff needs them to do, whenever staff needs them to do it.

[...]

Its the same thing with this game, the virtual powers are so damn strong that it makes almost everything that happens or that we do irrelevant. There is never really a sense of urgency for anything or there are never any real threats. Sure you can still fight for some of the crumbs left but a lot others have already won those crumbs too. It just ends up feeling stupid for anyone to ICly cause anymore conflict or problems beyond killing the person who stared at your boyfriend too long.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to what you're saying, but there's also the Size and Scope of plots.

Most of the plots that feel like they're not realistic is because they have a vast size and scope. The Tuluki Spy plot was not realistic, IMHO, because the size and scope was so large. The plot was something that would affect the entire city and well beyond that. You've got sneaky stuff around epic level NPCs, you've got becoming a pseudo-noble, you've got giant mountains moving around. I agree that on an epic-scale, things PCs do seem irrelevant.

However, I think what a lot of this misses is that there's also a lot of stuff PCs can do that's not epic level. There's smaller plots that matter as well. I guess it just feels like that gets missed a lot, because everybody wants something big and awesome and cool happening all of the time, but there's a lot of awesome cool plots that can happen at a smaller scope and scale as well. These plots are usually internal plots.

[Taven]

Repeating myself a bit, I just worry that you can't have a threat to everyone active all the time. It does have perks--But it also needs to be balanced out by breaks, or a focus more on internal plots. Otherwise, it's just "oh, another big large threat". If that makes sense.

Can you spell out this worry a bit more?  I'm having a hard time appreciating it.  Let me give you an example: in the rinth, there is westside and eastside conflict going on all the time -- it's nice, it's part of the background noise, gives you something to define your character by, etc.  I actually think it's a really good thing to have a background credible threat cranking away, maybe two or three of them.

But was it all just hack-and-slash conflict?  Not at all.  There were massive lulls, and that was partly natural and partly enforced by the people roleplaying in the rinth: sometimes populations on one side of the conflict or the other were small (natural lull), sometimes there were 'cold war style' treaties, sometimes there were third threats (southside) that unified the two groups, and so on.  (ETA: there was also the covert and overt style conflict you mention -- nice distinction by the way.)

Well, let's see if I can elaborate a little more, using your example of the 'rinth. For me, the rinthi plots and challenges are internal plots. Yes, there's east side and west side, but they're all bound in the singular geographical location of the 'rinth. The complexity you're seeing I would all attribute to being internal conflict. I suppose that's another thing about internal conflict--You usually assume it can't entirely wipe the other guy out. This is especially true with noble houses--Whatever plot you have, the goal isn't usually to destroy them, it's to cripple them, or slow them, or reduce their power base. Basically, I think internal plots are usually also more covert-centric plots, or at least have more covert elements.

I'd argue you could say 'rinth-Nak conflict was also internal (they're all bound in the city of Allanak, neither side is going anyplace soon), but lets assume its external for a minute (you could well argue southside is an external threat). My concern is that when there's "always a big bad guy", it would be as if southside was always constantly and actively trying to destroy the 'rinth. At what point is it just "well, Borsail got ANOTHER new mul to try to smash our faces in. At least he'll be more fun to stab then when Oash tried to get 'gickers to wipe us out with fire elementals. Hey, you think Tor will try with their soldiers sometime next week?".

I guess that's really getting at the tension of a plot. Plots are the most exciting, breath taking, and immersive when the tension is high. But you can't have high tension all of the time. High tension must be balanced out by low tension. It can't be 100% all of the time, or there's no contrast.

Looking at your 'rinth example, I can see you agree. You appreciate the lulls, the different forms of conflict, and look at it evolving over time. Generally, having a stable, long-term antagonist can also do this (Allanak Tuluk relations have varied a lot over the years, and even within the war there was more or less focus and tension), but it can also peter out ("Oh, we're still at war with Allanak? That's nice."). Looking at your rinth example, you seem to sort of understand how things can become "background noise", too. It's a hard balance.

But I don't feel (and I could be wrong) that players are generally asking for long-term antagonists. Or, they don't behave in a way that suggests they want long-term antagonists (the OOC "playing to win" thing). It feels like people want a new scary "flavor of the month", to try to keep the tension at 100% all of the time. And that's what my worry is.

[nauta]

Yep, yep, all in agreement, although I'd say the east-west conflict is more external, whereas the various vying factions for power within any given side is 'internal' (blues vs. reds and so on).  But that's a quibble -- the basic point remains the same -- and it goes to show that internal plots can turn into external plots when viewed from a certain perspective.  To use your term 'scope', the conflict I'm interested in (which I think is lacking right now) is one which has the scope of Allanak vs. Blank where you fill in the Blank with a (perhaps minimally) PC-populated virtual power -- a wide enough scope so that new players can hop in and go: Ok, I'm a Nakki, there's my hook.  (Just as a new rinther can hop in and go: Ok, I'm westside, there's my hook.  Not my only hook, but it's there.)

But I don't feel (and I could be wrong) that players are generally asking for long-term antagonists. Or, they don't behave in a way that suggests they want long-term antagonists (the OOC "playing to win" thing). It feels like people want a new scary "flavor of the month", to try to keep the tension at 100% all of the time. And that's what my worry is.

Dunno, I kind of think you are creating a bogeyman here, unless I'm misunderstanding Dresan and Norcal and the others posting in this thread.  I, at least, want one (or more) credible long-term intelligent threat that is populated by PCs cranking away in the background.

[Dresan]

First of all, if there are people who don't want to see internal plots here on the GDB, i haven't seen them. What I have seen is people commenting on why most internal conflicts wouldn't make sense in the current setting.

When you say "internal conflicts wouldn't make sense in the current setting", what is it you actually mean? Because I don't get it.

I can get how having something to add to internal conflict would be good, I can see how internal conflict is less immediately accessible, but I really don't get what you say when it "doesn't make sense in the current setting".

I mostly mean any serious internal conflict would most likely end like this:

The besieged Borsail estate, declared to be treacherous, is sunk into a pit of lava shortly thereafter by the Black Robe Tarith Kasix, effectively ending the gith threat.

In some ways similar to how external conflict have ended:

Exactly one year after the beginning of the siege of Allanak, Tektolnes reappears in the guise of a dragon and breathes death upon the sieging army - the army ceases to exist.

I guess you are right in the sense that if the scale and scope of the 'conflict' is kept tiny and petty then it would fit in the setting. For example, small rivalries that really don't amount to much in the great scheme of things and don't cause too much disruption. Otherwise you might have red robes taking notice and give rinthis a little IC love tap on the wrists.  I guess noble houses can go up or down in rankings(?), or disappear, that might suck from an ooc level for people who want to play something involving them but not sure if anyone would really notice or care at an IC level. Especially because nobles are rich and influential because a sorcerer king says so, not because they have any real good connection to the public, economy or armies though I'm sure some still do because why not.

The spy plot was perfectly fine in many ways. The challenges the spies had to face were interesting and cool,  the outcomes were interesting, and some of us were having suspicions before shit hit the fan so to see who was a traitor was nice. However, because of how ridiculously high the power ceiling is in tuluk, with a sorcerer king that can see the future and his templars with their own insane power levels then yes, I agree with you, the size and scope was too high. Due to the ridiculously high power levels that exist in Tuluk, it makes this perfectly good and interesting plot seem unrealistic and to me it was very jarring.  

I wish that would change, because I want to see more interesting plots like the spy plot. I would like to see the virtual power ceiling to come down in order to allow the size and scope of plots like those be more realistic and make more sense.  This would give people a sense that they might just win ICly or at least see some consequences caused by their defeat. I think we all understand OOCly that we cannot always win but it shouldn't feel so pointless to try.

Anyways I'm never against any idea to add internal or external conflict as you've been describing, just pointing out an overlying problem that I personally see(its just my opinion) to making any conflict be meaningful or considered an actual threat to anything but the most trivial things.

[Taven]

Yep, yep, all in agreement, although I'd say the east-west conflict is more external, whereas the various vying factions for power within any given side is 'internal' (blues vs. reds and so on).  But that's a quibble -- the basic point remains the same -- and it goes to show that internal plots can turn into external plots when viewed from a certain perspective.

Yes, internal/external can be more complex, and the 'rinth is just a very odd area in terms of defining things that way! Because it's part of Allanak, but not part of Allanak. It is a whole (the rinth) but also actually has geographical sub-areas (east side/west side). Clan-wise, though, I don't think eastside within itself or westside within itself have internal plots. I think they're largely dominated by one clanned group. You can certainly have inter-clan conflict, but that's another thing again.

To use your term 'scope', the conflict I'm interested in (which I think is lacking right now) is one which has the scope of Allanak vs. Blank where you fill in the Blank with a (perhaps minimally) PC-populated virtual power -- a wide enough scope so that new players can hop in and go: Ok, I'm a Nakki, there's my hook.  (Just as a new rinther can hop in and go: Ok, I'm westside, there's my hook.  Not my only hook, but it's there.)

I get what you're saying here. Having something immediately accessible to an unclanned PC in a certain area to provide a focus and sense of danger and purpose. I think that can be good, I think your argument for it drawing in newbies is also good.

But I also want to point out again that internal plots also have build-in plots. No, they're not as immediately accessible to newbies, since you need to be in a clan to access them, but they're there and intended to stimulate conflict. You're a Borsail? Hate Oash. You're a Tor? Hate on Fale. There's a lot of room for plots there, if people wished to pursue them. (And I'm not saying you don't see this, I'm just pointing it out in general).

[nauta]

Yes, internal/external can be more complex, and the 'rinth is just a very odd area in terms of defining things that way! Because it's part of Allanak, but not part of Allanak. It is a whole (the rinth) but also actually has geographical sub-areas (east side/west side). Clan-wise, though, I don't think eastside within itself or westside within itself have internal plots. I think they're largely dominated by one clanned group. You can certainly have inter-clan conflict, but that's another thing again.

Tiny derail, but my biggest peeve with the rinth was the lack of a clan for the eastside -- nothing that defines them, like the Guild or whatever -- but just as an OOC convenience.  In an ideal world, there'd be two clans in the rinth: Westside (aka Guild) and Eastside.  In an even more ideal world, there'd be dynamically generated clans that operate like genus and species: clan Allanak, clan rinth, clan westside, clan The Reds.

[Taven]

[Stuff]

So you gave two examples of plots being squished by virtual power level:

• The besieged Borsail estate, declared to be treacherous, is sunk into a pit of lava shortly thereafter by the Black Robe Tarith Kasix, effectively ending the gith threat.
• Exactly one year after the beginning of the siege of Allanak, Tektolnes reappears in the guise of a dragon and breathes death upon the sieging army - the army ceases to exist.

The first example about Borsail happened during the Gith War. The Gith were an external plot, not internal. Sure, Borsail was mixed up in it, but there was a definite threat from outside of the city. I don't count it as an internal plot.

The second example is when Thrain Iornsword decided to try and wipe out Allanak. Again, I'd argue that this was also an external plot. You could argue that Thrain was from Allanak, freeing slaves from the city, but they intentionally set themselves apart as a group external from the city.

Internal conflict is about inter-city or inter-locale groups having conflict with themselves.

So while your examples are examples of how Allanak might be "too big", and has too much virtual power, in your opinion--It's still not internal plots you're looking at.

I guess you are right in the sense that if the scale and scope of the 'conflict' is kept tiny and petty then it would fit in the setting. For example, small rivalries that really don't amount to much in the great scheme of things and don't cause too much disruption. Otherwise you might have red robes taking notice and give rinthis a little IC love tap on the wrists.  I guess noble houses can go up or down in rankings(?), or disappear, that might suck from an ooc level for people who want to play something involving them but not sure if anyone would really notice or care at an IC level. Especially because nobles are rich and influential because a sorcerer king says so, not because they have any real good connection to the public, economy or armies though I'm sure some still do because why not.

I don't think everything is or should be a world-changing plot. I don't think every plot has to challenge the status quo. I think if every plot did do that, it would take away any stability the game has.

Do I think that maybe Allanak or Tuluk could be smaller so things could feel more more threatening? Sure, maybe. I'm not inherently against this idea.

I think the reasoning behind it, though, feels like people want every plot to be an EPIC PLOT that CHANGE THE WORLD. And I don't think that's viable.

[Taven]

The spy plot was perfectly fine in many ways.

The basic idea of the spy plot is good. Having people go in, collect information, and use it to fuel a greater plot. Awesome, good stuff, some covert conflict that could involve people.

I don't like that it was something a normal non-sponsored PC could realistically do. There's a few reasons why they couldn't. I agree that part of it is the virtual power levels. I also think that it has to do with the nature of Tuluki power in general. There's also the third nebulous territory of getting a PC who could do it, which involves if they could get the staff support. There's the question of if people wouldn't just immediately recognize a "spy" if they had started as a normal PC. So on, so forth.

I wish that would change, because I want to see more interesting plots like the spy plot. I would like to see the virtual power ceiling to come down in order to allow the size and scope of plots like those be more realistic and make more sense.  This would give people a sense that they might just win ICly or at least see some consequences caused by their defeat. I think we all understand OOCly that we cannot always win but it feel so pointless to try.

There's lots of little spy plots that can happen--Internally. Noble houses spying on each other, noble houses spying on the rinth, rinth spying on the byn, GMH spying on each other, whatever.

You can even do a little bit of External Plot spying. Go plant a spy in Luirs, go plant a spy in Storm, go have someone pose as a Tribal and spy on the Pah.

Generally, however, it's a little less dramatic then what happened with Tyn Dashra. Volcanos don't fall from the sky everyday. I don't want them to, either.

[Taven]

Tiny derail, but my biggest peeve with the rinth was the lack of a clan for the eastside -- nothing that defines them, like the Guild or whatever -- but just as an OOC convenience.  In an ideal world, there'd be two clans in the rinth: Westside (aka Guild) and Eastside.  In an even more ideal world, there'd be dynamically generated clans that operate like genus and species: clan Allanak, clan rinth, clan westside, clan The Reds.

There actually is a clan for elves on the eastside, it's just been closed for a number of RL years.

[Dresan]

I didn't mean specifically plots that involve spying in particular, I mostly mean plots with the depth, size and scope of the spy plot.  I've had character who happily sold information for extra coins, most of the time there was never anything exciting to tell anyways. They were only worth listening to because there was nothing better to do.

The spies in the spy plot though could have gotten caught, could have failed many times, when we remembered what they were like before they betrayed the city, some of their actions began to make sense. But despite this at the end, they managed to succeed against the city. That is awesome and it was mostly the players making things happen for themselves. The staff only came in on the end, and used their actions as an excuse to make the IC changes they wanted.....not to mention the staff also made sure that Muk or one of his templars didn't appear out of nowhere and killed them with a single wink because they could have just as easily, if not for 'reasons'.

The only way plots of this size and scope can happen more easily, make sense and be more realistic without being utterly jarring is if the IC power levels around the known are toned down .

[Taven]

[P]lots with the depth, size and scope of the spy plot.  I've had character who happily sold information for extra coins, most of the time there was never anything exciting to tell anyways. They were only worth listening to because there was nothing better to do.

Yeah, but... Not everything is going to be that opportunity and scale all of the time. It's not realistic, and it would quickly lose meaning.

[Dresan]

That's fine and reasonable, I'm all for plots of all sizes and scope. However as things are currently with the ridiculously high virtual power levels, there aren't many very realistic opportunities for any real meaningful conflict.

At the end the spy plot was ultimately pretty jarring to me because the setting in Tuluk, and its high power level at the top made the entire thing feel unrealistic. If it wasn't for sorcerer kings and templars, the spy plot would have been a nice plot, not a insanely grand story like the entire invasion of tuluk, but just a very cool sub-plot that accomplished something meaningful.

[nauta]

Tiny derail, but my biggest peeve with the rinth was the lack of a clan for the eastside -- nothing that defines them, like the Guild or whatever -- but just as an OOC convenience.  In an ideal world, there'd be two clans in the rinth: Westside (aka Guild) and Eastside.  In an even more ideal world, there'd be dynamically generated clans that operate like genus and species: clan Allanak, clan rinth, clan westside, clan The Reds.

There actually is a clan for elves on the eastside, it's just been closed for a number of RL years.

(That always was salt in the wound -- it's even there!  Anyway, it's derail-ville on that, but I was just thinking Eastside Clan, not some particular elf clan, and as a pure OOC convenience - no culture, no docs, no nothing.)

Do I think that maybe Allanak or Tuluk could be smaller so things could feel more more threatening? Sure, maybe. I'm not inherently against this idea.

I think the reasoning behind it, though, feels like people want every plot to be an EPIC PLOT that CHANGE THE WORLD. And I don't think that's viable.

Yeah, I get you on that.  You know my reason for it: it's hard to come up with an antagonist that might be a viable source of external conflict for Allanak-as-a-whole granted the way things stand, although not impossible: just plop a sorcerer among those mean desert elves, I guess.  It just sort of makes everything kind of volcano-level dramatic when it doesn't have to be.  (Maybe a bad analogy: if the USSR and the USA didn't have nuclear weapons, the cold war would have been a lot more exciting.)

[solera]

The cold war was  pretty exciting, because we believed that a twitchy finger coild lead to the obliteration of the northern civilization. For a few weeks, the sorcerer kings were primed and it was just one move away from the first cast. There were books written and films made, and half of us thought it was as inevitable  as global warming.
Then new leaders, or a change in the state departments, or a new political theory, who knows, times changed. And changed again.
I was hoping the analogy would lead back to our game, but I seem to have lost the thread.

On topic, it's hard having a small group who are going against the flow. With time zones , and limited playing time, it takes a fair number of PC to make a stable group, even if they stay in the shadows.

[nauta]

The cold war was  pretty exciting, because we believed that a twitchy finger coild lead to the obliteration of the northern civilization. For a few weeks, the sorcerer kings were primed and it was just one move away from the first cast. There were books written and films made, and half of us thought it was as inevitable  as global warming.
Then new leaders, or a change in the state departments, or a new political theory, who knows, times changed. And changed again.
I was hoping the analogy would lead back to our game, but I seem to have lost the thread. Then they closed the USSR to players.

FTFY 

(Just to be clear, I'm not advocating opening Tuluk back up to play.  I'm advocating for a (playable) antagonist for Allanak-as-a-whole, whatever that might be.  Might be a dumb idea.)

[Desertman]

I didn't read everything before this post. Just a heads up.

I have some thoughts on the idea of a lack of meaningful conflict in the game however, especially as it pertains to Houses.



When it comes to the GMH's in game and even the noble Houses in some regards we have a very interesting system in place. It's a system that seems fundamentally designed at its very core to ensure there is NEVER any meaningful conflict.

We wrote a massive beautiful desert world with extremely limited resources where the entire focus behind most conflict WOULD naturally be the friction created by said lack of resources. Then, we established super powers who all specifically work in completely different fields so that they NEVER conflict with each other over said resources. They have absolutely no reason to. They have all agreed for thousands of years at this point to not deal in each others goods, and they seem to stick to that.

So, we created this awesome world where the conflict for resources SHOULD be the primary starter of most conflict......then we specifically wrote in every major power so that we can make sure that conflict doesn't happen.

That seems a lot like building a waterpark and then specifically outlawing water in any way.

You can look at the awesome super structure and all of its potential, but, that's all it's for....looking at and giving the appearance of awesome without actually putting in any awesome.

I've also discovered that not only are the major powers holding to this status quo, so to speak.....but staff WANTS it this way. Not only do they want the current powers to stay this way, but they want to ensure anyone "coming up" also conforms to this system if at all possible.

That's an entirely separate issue, but one I believe is very telling. We've created a system where there is no conflict for resources, and we want to ensure if at all possible that such conflict IS NOT created at any meaningful level.




My solution?

Get rid of the great monopolies. Keep the Houses in place but turn them all into "Trading Houses". They aren't Weapon's Houses, or Silk Houses...they are "Trading Houses". Their trade is exactly that...trade.

They all trade in "Goods". Not specific goods. Their goal is to turn a profit. Not maintain a single monopoly for profit. Their goal is to trade in everything for maximum profitability.

Right now we have this system:

Chrysler Vs McDonalds - Zero conflict. They don't deal in the same things. They have zero reason to have conflict.

We need this system:

Wal-Mart vs Target - Two totally different "Houses" who have an extreme reason to have conflict regularly.


That is the change we need in my opinion.

Please note: I do not mean I want these two House sending massive NPC armies at each other on the reg.

I would however like to see their PC hunting crews having a reason to give each other the stink-eye on the reg. Perhaps they have a reason to come to blows in the desert against each other at times.

Maybe Merchant A from House Salarr has a reason now to try and wipe out Merchant B from House Kadius beyond, "She stole my boyfriend and now I'm seriously roflcopter-angry-for-realz"."

That sort of thing. An on-going reason for PC's to translate their professions within these major organizations into reasons for conflict but not necessarily massive staff-ran NPC armies wiping each other out every week.

[Desertman]

Adding:

I also feel the ONLY reason our current system is in place is because we needed an IC way in the very beginning to ensure people had "Houses to join." and "Places to buy basic gear.". So we created constructs to fill those needs. We needed that way back in the day when peak playtimes were 19 people.

At this point I think we are holding to that design for no other reason than it would be a massive undertaking to change it....so we are keeping to that design.

The problem I see is that we aren't only keeping to that design...we are doing our best to ensure that design isn't changed, even by the players over time.

I think the best course of action would be to rip the Band-Aid off, but I also would not be the one doing that massive workload and I know our staff is already pretty taxed out in terms of available time to take on major jobs.

It's a problem I don't think we can fix, but a problem I think needs to be pointed out.

If you create a system that is fundamentally designed to ensure a lack of conflict, you get a lack of conflict.

[Narf]

I think rather than completely changing the structure of the existing houses it might be easier to just come up with resources they both would seek and put them in the game.

There are a lot of components that go into both weapons and jewelry.

There are even more components that go into both armor and clothing.

[nauta]

I think rather than completely changing the structure of the existing houses it might be easier to just come up with resources they both would seek and put them in the game.

There are a lot of components that go into both weapons and jewelry.

There are even more components that go into both armor and clothing.

Agreed.  The tension, I guess, is between having some form of meaningful (not just virtual) external conflict (between Houses in this case) and allowing room for internal conflict (drama within a given House).  If your experience in Salarr is entirely fuss with internal conflict (who is sleeping with whom, etc.) then it isn't very fun; so too if it is entirely external (race to grab the salt mines from Kadius), it isn't very fun.

You need both, and probably in the case of the GMH houses at least the external conflict is pretty light (both virtually and in terms of PCs).

I was in Salarr for about six months or more when I first started, and we had some very lively Kadius vs. Salarr stuff going on (spying, pranks, even bounties and the like), but a lot of it was... under-motivated (or only motivated by personal animus against the persons on the other side, not motivated by some institutional animus): kudos to the leadership there for getting things going, but it strikes me now, in hindsight, that the structure wasn't in place to really sustain and motivate that sort of institutional conflict, for reasons Desertman outlined above.

[Desertman]

I think rather than completely changing the structure of the existing houses it might be easier to just come up with resources they both would seek and put them in the game.

There are a lot of components that go into both weapons and jewelry.

There are even more components that go into both armor and clothing.

This is a good idea but one I don't think fundamentally works.

The thing about the game-world is resources aren't rare. Everyone knows this.

A single ranger can fill up a three room apartment with literally thousands upon thousand of sid worth of materials in no time at all.

The conflict needs to be created at the roleplay level, not the hard-math level behind resources.


If that would work, it would be working already.

Kadius and Salarr already both use leather in a lot of their goods for example.....but there aren't any leather wars happening. Leather SHOULD already be a hard resource to come by, and for the virtual world it absolutely is. Your "Average Joe" (VNPC and NPC) doesn't go out usually and come back with high quality leather.

A single PC can come back with high-quality leather by the chest-full. Is leather written to be a valuable and rare resource in a desert world where wildlife is super dangerous? Absolutely. Is it in practice to the point that Houses and their hunters/merchants actually have conflict over it? No. Why? Because it's not rare on the PC level.

To make something rare on the PC level to create conflict you would have to make it almost non-existent....which means PC's wouldn't actually use it enough to go into conflict with each other over it....unless it was staff forced conflict for a single event or set of events, which is not long-term meaningful conflict....it's a single RPT.

The Copper War was a good example of this.

What I'm talking about is ongoing meaningful conflict written into the documentation of each "House" so that the PC's in them can translate that into a reason for IC conflict.

My goal isn't to make resources "rare" so that people go to war over them. That's almost impossible to do.

My goal is to make it the status quo that we all roleplay the scarcity of the resources that are ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE RARE, and translate that into conflict.

[Desertman]

A good example of this is the conflict you see between rival Byn units at times.

We all know that Byn units work towards the same goal. Their goal is to complete jobs to make as much money as possible. In theory that should be the fundamental ONLY measurement of a Byn unit's success. (Different issue.)

I've seen on more than one occasion where Byn units actually compete with each other and have great animosity towards each other based SOLELY on the IDEA that they are competing for the same end-game.

They don't even deal in goods or resources. Their conflict is created by nothing more than the idea that they are all working towards being the best at an end-game goal. The "Best Mercenary Unit".

This is awesome conflict. Every time I have seen it, it has been great fun for everyone.

You could argue they are at each other's throats over the resource, "Available Jobs", but they really aren't. Not really. The WHOLE conflict is created by the IDEA that they are all working towards the same end goal and are competing with each other to that end. It's great fun.

If you turn the GMH's into Trading Houses and not Monopoly Houses....they will all be working towards the same end-goal in theory. The ideas of every person in them will change from, "My goal is to create AWESOME WEAPONS.", to, "My goal is to ensure my House is the GREATEST TRADING HOUSE, and now I have a lot of competition on that front right across the way.".

[Marauder Moe]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?  I think pretty much every noble house feud I've seen was sparked by personal sleights/insults, but fueled by the fact that most large institutions (Houses) in Armageddon really just don't like their peers.  I've seen the staff get involved and run with such plots too, stoking the flames even after the original trouble-makers died/retired.

Don't know how things are these days, though.  It's been a while since I had a PC in touch with that level of politics.

[Desertman]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?  I think pretty much every noble house feud I've seen was sparked by personal sleights/insults, but fueled by the fact that most large institutions (Houses) in Armageddon really just don't like their peers.  I've seen the staff get involved and run with such plots too, stoking the flames even after the original trouble-makers died/retired.

Don't know how things are these days, though.  It's been a while since I had a PC in touch with that level of politics.

I think those are great plots for Noble Houses and I can see most Noble House cross-conflict plots being based entirely within that realm.

I don't mind if they don't change at all. In fact I would argue they shouldn't so that those sorts of plots have an ideal and awesome avenue for creation.

[Norcal]

My solution?

Get rid of the great monopolies. Keep the Houses in place but turn them all into "Trading Houses". They aren't Weapon's Houses, or Silk Houses...they are "Trading Houses". Their trade is exactly that...trade.

They all trade in "Goods". Not specific goods. Their goal is to turn a profit. Not maintain a single monopoly for profit. Their goal is to trade in everything for maximum profitability.

Right now we have this system:

Chrysler Vs McDonalds - Zero conflict. They don't deal in the same things. They have zero reason to have conflict.

We need this system:

Wal-Mart vs Target - Two totally different "Houses" who have an extreme reason to have conflict regularly.


That is the change we need in my opinion.

Please note: I do not mean I want these two House sending massive NPC armies at each other on the reg.

I would however like to see their PC hunting crews having a reason to give each other the stink-eye on the reg. Perhaps they have a reason to come to blows in the desert against each other at times.

Maybe Merchant A from House Salarr has a reason now to try and wipe out Merchant B from House Kadius beyond, "She stole my boyfriend and now I'm seriously roflcopter-angry-for-realz"."

That sort of thing. An on-going reason for PC's to translate their professions within these major organizations into reasons for conflict but not necessarily massive staff-ran NPC armies wiping each other out every week.

This is the kind of thing I was getting at in my earlier posts.  We need some heavy competition for resources, and that competition needs to include some violent conflict.

Having monopolies on what amounts to virtual resources is not much fun.  I know that you -can- sift spice.  Yet as far as I know only Kurac can make it into knots and bricks. Even a simple code thing like opening this ability up to everyone would increase conflict. Then Kurac would actually have to control the spice production areas.

And where -are- the silk worms and bushes they grow on?  And who ever said that Noble Houses cannot vie for a stake of the mercantile pie?  Why does Tor not decide to start making its own line of arms and armour?

As I mentioned above, the idea of mega armies and HRPTs is not at all what I am advocating for. Rather resource wars on a smaller scale.

If everything above the glass ceiling is unplayable, then it should not have such a major influence on a game that is supposed to be more player plot driven.

[Marauder Moe]

Are there really so many people out there thinking "Man, I'd really like to start some shit but I just don't have a good reason to..."?

[Eurynomos]

It may be possible that things you've noticed about the game, we've noticed too. Maybe something like this is in the works? Who knows! (We do).

Chillax, have a brew-dog, and see what's coming down the pipeline, bra. Speculation on the GDB can cheapen some of the work we do behind the scenes. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, not saying 'quit it', but maybe trust us to have creative vision with these sorts of things. We aren't blind people in the dark, we have our fingers on the pulse of the game.

We like conflict as much as the next guy.

[Desertman]

It may be possible that things you've noticed about the game, we've noticed too. Maybe something like this is in the works? Who knows! (We do).

Chillax, have a brew-dog, and see what's coming down the pipeline, bra. Speculation on the GDB can cheapen some of the work we do behind the scenes. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, not saying 'quit it', but maybe trust us to have creative vision with these sorts of things. We aren't blind people in the dark, we have our fingers on the pulse of the game.

We like conflict as much as the next guy.

Well, we don't know, so that's why we like to let you know what we've noticed.

Please don't take these sorts of posts as, "Staff is failing.". Take it as, "This player is just throwing me some info because he has no idea if I've figured this out, but he wants me to know what he's/she's seeing.".

Basically, chillax, have a brew-dog, because I have no idea what's coming down the pipeline. 

[Norcal]

Are there really so many people out there thinking "Man, I'd really like to start some shit but I just don't have a good reason to..."?

ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?  BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE TAKLKING TO ME!

SO STEP UP....PUNK.   ( I am really not mean.)

And Eury, I do believe you have some fun stuff in the works.  I trust you to make it more FUN!  Not complaining at all.  Just discussing.

[Alesan]

It may be possible that things you've noticed about the game, we've noticed too. Maybe something like this is in the works? Who knows! (We do).

Chillax, have a brew-dog, and see what's coming down the pipeline, bra. Speculation on the GDB can cheapen some of the work we do behind the scenes. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, not saying 'quit it', but maybe trust us to have creative vision with these sorts of things. We aren't blind people in the dark, we have our fingers on the pulse of the game.

We like conflict as much as the next guy.

Not knowing that this stuff is going on behind the scenes is why these discussions are sparked. Are you saying don't have discussions because we don't know if staff might already be doing it? That's hard to swallow.

[Eurynomos]

It may be possible that things you've noticed about the game, we've noticed too. Maybe something like this is in the works? Who knows! (We do).

Chillax, have a brew-dog, and see what's coming down the pipeline, bra. Speculation on the GDB can cheapen some of the work we do behind the scenes. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, not saying 'quit it', but maybe trust us to have creative vision with these sorts of things. We aren't blind people in the dark, we have our fingers on the pulse of the game.

We like conflict as much as the next guy.

Not knowing that this stuff is going on behind the scenes is why these discussions are sparked. Are you saying don't have discussions because we don't know if staff might already be doing it? That's hard to swallow.

A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!

I'm not saying 'don't have these discussions'. It's a bit of a catch 22, if I were to say that. If you don't know about something, how are you supposed to know about it? Sort of like the leap of faith in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, i'm just asking (I know, what am I thinking!) for a bit of trust that Staff . Just while having the discussion keep in mind that Staff may have thought of these things too -- Because we are players as well. So we notice things might not be working in an area, and we work on it. We like to show rather than tell, because we've had disappointing 'lack of follow through' when we say we are going to do something and then don't finish up. So, showing you the finished product has ended up being more productive.

These discussions can be healthy -- Staff do take direction from Player desires more often than you think, because we might find an idea we agree with, and being on Staff, we can see them come to fruition with more expediency than a player might. Not knowing stuff is going on behind the scenes (or what it is) is what can make this game exciting. If we were to show you everything we are up to, before we do it...What would the point be, really? It's like knowing the end of the book before you start reading.

Again, catch 22.

[nauta]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?

Nothing.

[Delirium]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?

Nothing.

.. except it gets old if it's the only source of plots, and if it's for petty reasons.

"he stole my girlfriend" = petty
"he's blackmailing me because he knows my deep dark secret" = not petty

[Desertman]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?

Nothing.

.. except it gets old if it's the only source of plots, and if it's for petty reasons.

"he stole my girlfriend" = petty
"he's blackmailing me because he knows my deep dark secret" = not petty

+1

I'm not advocating this going away at all.

But for now it seems to be the primary driving factor in MOST PC to PC plots.

I would rather see it as the flavor factor that runs behind the scenes with economic and production based factors at the roleplay level as the driving factors behind most plots.

It's a game where the entire theme is "Scarcity breeds conflict.". That's literally what the world is about. It's a desert planet. That SHOULD be the tool used for the vast majority of conflicts...most of the time it isn't.

[Marauder Moe]

Ok so then... use it as a tool?  I don't think you need staff permission to rag on House X for poaching "your" resources.

[Ender]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?  I think pretty much every noble house feud I've seen was sparked by personal sleights/insults, but fueled by the fact that most large institutions (Houses) in Armageddon really just don't like their peers.  I've seen the staff get involved and run with such plots too, stoking the flames even after the original trouble-makers died/retired.

Don't know how things are these days, though.  It's been a while since I had a PC in touch with that level of politics.

The issue is these are soap opera style plots.  In a soap opera there can be seemingly grand conflicts between characters, but those conflicts on closer inspection are at the micro level and will never create meaningful change within the world they exist.  Soap opera conflict exists because conflict must exist in that format, and it doesn't have to make a lot of sense or really further a long standing plot.

Plots that are just "I don't like him/her" are fine, but Dman and if I'm reading Eury's post correctly, the staff are in agreement, that there should be more opportunities for conflict beyond soap opera plots.  Conflict that doesn't need to be forced, conflict that makes sense to even someone looking on the outside, conflict that's so obvious people would be questioning why it wasn't happening.

For example, let's say trees were actually presented as a finite resource instead of infinite like they are now.  When they're infinite OOCly there's no competition over them, anyone can just walk in with an axe and type >chop tree, and they have trees!  If that resource was limited in game, there would be a potential for conflict.  Same goes for infinitely respawning wild life.  Why should Salarr and Kadius compete over hides when the supply of hides will always vastly outmatch the ability of a hunter to gather them all?

 

[Alesan]

...

...

<snip>
Again, catch 22.

Fair enough. The post just felt a little odd. I don't think any of us want to cheapen staff's work, or assume nothing will be done about it. At least that isn't the feeling I got from the thread at all. Just a back and forth about how things feel in the game.

[Desertman]

Ok so then... use it as a tool?  I don't think you need staff permission to rag on House X for poaching "your" resources.

You can do a lot of stuff that makes no IC sense for a OOC desire for conflict, I just don't want to have to. I feel it makes you a bad roleplayer if you do that.

[Norcal]

What's wrong with personal animus as a source of plots?

Nothing.

.. except it gets old if it's the only source of plots, and if it's for petty reasons.

"he stole my girlfriend" = petty
"he's blackmailing me because he knows my deep dark secret" = not petty

+1

I'm not advocating this going away at all.

But for now it seems to be the primary driving factor in MOST PC to PC plots.

I would rather see it as the flavor factor that runs behind the scenes with economic and production based factors at the roleplay level as the driving factors behind most plots.

It's a game where the entire theme is "Scarcity breeds conflict.". That's literally what the world is about. It's a desert planet. That SHOULD be the tool used for the vast majority of conflicts...most of the time it isn't.

Yup. Often the conflict we end up with is internal to a clan. As I mentioned above, some folks join clans wit the intent on creating some conflict/drama, and they have fun.  This might be fun for the player creating the conflict/drama, yet it is not always fun for everyone else, and dealing with it means that I as a clan leader cannot focus on creating larger level house to house type conflict.

Ok so then... use it as a tool?  I don't think you need staff permission to rag on House X for poaching "your" resources.

You do not need permission, yet clan elders will most likely not be in favor of any non-discreet conflict. And if it becomes overt then it may be dealt with over drinks by clan elders above the glass ceiling, in a virtual meting. If you -must- kill that nasty merchant in House Makinstuff, do it quietly and do not get caught.

Fun yes!  However it is by nature a plot for a limited number of folks.

I would prefer something like D man is suggesting;

Hey you Salaar hunters! This here is -our- patch o' scrub and them is our goudras (or insert your favorite resource here) you all is killin'  so y'all best  **** off or step up.




So Salarr is forced to fight or negotiate if they want that resource. 

[nauta]

It may be possible that things you've noticed about the game, we've noticed too. Maybe something like this is in the works? Who knows! (We do).

Chillax, have a brew-dog, and see what's coming down the pipeline, bra. Speculation on the GDB can cheapen some of the work we do behind the scenes. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, not saying 'quit it', but maybe trust us to have creative vision with these sorts of things. We aren't blind people in the dark, we have our fingers on the pulse of the game.

We like conflict as much as the next guy.

Alesan has the right of it here: this comment in this thread is just 'huh?'  If you have a particular concern about someone 'speculating' or vagueposting against staff or something, point it out.  (Who is the 'you' there, anyway?)  I don't see that at all.

We like to show rather than tell, because we've had disappointing 'lack of follow through' when we say we are going to do something and then don't finish up. So, showing you the finished product has ended up being more productive.
...
Not knowing stuff is going on behind the scenes (or what it is) is what can make this game exciting. If we were to show you everything we are up to, before we do it...What would the point be, really? It's like knowing the end of the book before you start reading.

In my view, it's part of the collaborative process to have these discussions, and it makes players feel involved.  You seem to agree that it's healthy.  What'd be nice is staff participation in the discussion instead of just bumbling in, telling us to have some hotdogs in frattish, talking about how we don't know what we don't know, and then bumbling out.  (I have very little idea what makes staff adopt the show-rather-than-tell policy, but it strikes me as rather dubious.  But that's something for another thread.)

[Dresan]

Something that is currently lacking to help conflict is more viable places to live other than Allanak. Alternative places to live, work and make a life for yourself are important because that means you have some place to run to after authority figures get pissed at you.

We currently have redstorm but unfortunately it is surrounded by environments so harsh and at times unplayable they drive alot of people away. I think the environment north, east and west of redstorm needs some love, the same amount of love the enviroment around allanak got....even if that means the distance between redstorm and allanak need to be expanded just a tad, like the distance between luirs and allanak to allow more diverse enviroments that still allow for playability.

While luirs outpost would be a nice place for would-be villans to play from, it never has been and I don't think that will change any time soon. I've read this somewhere else, but I feel it is very true for me. If you took redstorm and put it between allanak and luirs, replacing Cenyr, it would probably be the only place I would play. I bet you I'd have alot of company there. This isn't to say I wouldn't have business in allanak, mugging, raiding and robbing people, causing conflict, but at the end of a days hard work I'd return to my village full of my loving family and friends,  where the NPC authority wouldn't give two-shit about my activity in another part of the world.  

[Eurynomos]

It may be possible that things you've noticed about the game, we've noticed too. Maybe something like this is in the works? Who knows! (We do).

Chillax, have a brew-dog, and see what's coming down the pipeline, bra. Speculation on the GDB can cheapen some of the work we do behind the scenes. It's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, not saying 'quit it', but maybe trust us to have creative vision with these sorts of things. We aren't blind people in the dark, we have our fingers on the pulse of the game.

We like conflict as much as the next guy.

Alesan has the right of it here: this comment in this thread is just 'huh?'  If you have a particular concern about someone 'speculating' or vagueposting against staff or something, point it out.  (Who is the 'you' there, anyway?)  I don't see that at all.

We like to show rather than tell, because we've had disappointing 'lack of follow through' when we say we are going to do something and then don't finish up. So, showing you the finished product has ended up being more productive.
...
Not knowing stuff is going on behind the scenes (or what it is) is what can make this game exciting. If we were to show you everything we are up to, before we do it...What would the point be, really? It's like knowing the end of the book before you start reading.

In my view, it's part of the collaborative process to have these discussions, and it makes players feel involved.  You seem to agree that it's healthy.  What'd be nice is staff participation in the discussion instead of just bumbling in, telling us to have some hotdogs in frattish, talking about how we don't know what we don't know, and then bumbling out.  (I have very little idea what makes staff adopt the show-rather-than-tell policy, but it strikes me as rather dubious.  But that's something for another thread.)

Could you describe why it appears dubious? We invite discussion when we can, but if we were to appraise the player base of every move we make before we make it, it would not only make for an impossible effectiveness in getting stuff done, but there would be no surprise, mystery, or payoff for the player base as well. We do incorporate quite a few of player's ideas, and have a track record of doing so over the years. Off the top of my head, a player made a GDB thread about the Mood command, and I think that was implemented later that month (?). There are lists floating around on the GDB of 'Staff Implemented Changes that Players Suggested', and it's actually a fun list to look over.

It may appear that I am bumbling in and out of the thread or threads that I post in -- That's because i'm busy actually working on stuff for the game, either on the Port or on the IDB. Sorry!!! But I do try to check in and give my 2 cents now and then, and engage players in honest discussions, where possible.

[seidhr]

I would say that, on the whole, staff are more pro-conflict than the playerbase at large.

Sometimes it seems like we have a lot of players who just want to sit around and be bros with everyone, societal, racial, whatever other inequality be damned - in addition to the scarcity, totalitarian dictatorships, and all that.  It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense!

[Inks]

I often play conflict pcs and have never been shot down by staff when I app in with a raider background or play a cold mofo. (With or without CGP, usually without)

If done properly staff seem to enjoy these pcs. Just play them realistically and keep it IC.

I enjoy generating plots and such and players mostly acted realistically around those pcs. So thanks for being awesome, players.

[nauta]

Could you describe why it appears dubious? We invite discussion when we can...

Sounds good.  This is the first I've ever heard of the show-rather-than-tell policy, but it looks like you guys do at least invite discussion when you can, so it's not very enforced.  It's great for avoiding spoilers, but for other aspects of the gameplay experience, I'd think that putting the idea out there for players to chew on would have a net benefit to everyone involved: you'd get feedback (witness: banking changes - oops!) and players wouldn't be blindsided (compare: tuluk vs. sorcerers).

[Eurynomos]

Could you describe why it appears dubious? We invite discussion when we can...

Sounds good.  This is the first I've ever heard of the show-rather-than-tell policy, but it looks like you guys do at least invite discussion when you can, so it's not very enforced.  It's great for avoiding spoilers, but for other aspects of the gameplay experience, I'd think that putting the idea out there for players to chew on would have a net benefit to everyone involved: you'd get feedback (witness: banking changes - oops!) and players wouldn't be blindsided (compare: tuluk vs. sorcerers).

I'm not really the GDB kung fu search wizard that many people are, but it's been our (personal) policy for a while as Staff -- Honestly, probably, since Armageddon Reborn/2.0. When it's overarching OOC changes, you'll notice that with every announcement in the last few years, we've posted a discussion thread for all major changes. In those threads, some player voiced opinion has effected change, sometimes it hasn't. It depends on the issue, and it's rather specific to what that issue or change is. I agree that it is great to avoid spoilers, so when it comes to IC changes or movements, we tend to be pretty tight-lipped, and I think for good reason. I'd like to think that we are much more receptive to player feedback than we've ever been before -- I think a few of the old timers can attest to that. Staff were pretty 'my way or the highway' even like five or six years ago. We're constantly moving towards a more collaborative environment -- But it's a two-way street. We also expect to be treated respectfully in interactions, or we tend to check out and go do something more productive with our time. Saying that I 'bumble into threads' isn't very respectful! So I guess if you want me to treat you with respect and not wave my snark wand, you'll need to afford me the same courtesy.

When we say 'volunteer time', it's that time is typically important to all of us as human beings. When i'm at work, I get compensated for my time with money (woo hoo!). When i'm putting time into a hobby like ArmageddonMUD, it's because I love it, and it's a good outlet for my imagination  and creativity. I think all of us on Staff recognize that this is just as true for players -- You, as players, devote your time into this game/hobby, and you want it to mean something and not be a waste of time. There isn't some hierarchy that decides 'your time is better than my time', not by a long shot. Our duties as Staff are different than players, but not necessarily better by merit. I'd like to think the time I put into this game is well spent, and I think players have the same mentality.

As for conflict, we very much agree there needs to be more of it. And we are attempting to effect changes in this respect, many of which mirror sentiments stated throughout this thread. Hopefully that will make everyone, Staff and Players, together, happy!

[nauta]

Saying that I 'bumble into threads' isn't very respectful! So I guess if you want me to treat you with respect and not wave my snark wand, you'll need to afford me the same courtesy.

Yeah, sorry I probably characterized it too harshly; I really only meant that particular comment seemed to be a bit out-of-nowhere.  Also I really don't like brew-dogs.

[seidhr]

We're in a game where there's a lot of privileged information (IC or otherwise) so it doesn't always allow us to have a discussion about things up front.  The secrets, misinformation, and wild theories about how or why something is the way it is are part of the game's charm.   

[Lizzie]

We're in a game where there's a lot of privileged information (IC or otherwise) so it doesn't always allow us to have a discussion about things up front.  The secrets, misinformation, and wild theories about how or why something is the way it is are part of the game's charm.   

I heard you'll be opening up the braxats to players as a sub-extended-subguild. And that Rathustra will be playing a Wyvern kit who gets raised by the Braxats til maturity, at which point he will set out to destroy Allanak and become the new sorcerer-king of Luir's.

Please confirm.

[Suhuy]

quote author=Alesan link=topic=50061.msg911341#msg911341 date=1446826839]
I'm a relatively new player. I play because I have nothing better to do. Mostly I log on and hope for inspiration that never really comes. There's a lot of great roleplayers in the game but it's rare to see many of them gather in one place. I've seen peak hours top out at 40 players and the world seems empty and desolate of PCs. And then you guys want more places added to the game so there's even less PCs to be found. I have a feeling that even if the game world was restricted to Allanak, people would still be spread out in clans and apartments and it'd look very much the same as it does now.

Just idle thoughts.

Whoever wrote this had a really good point. For those players who were present at the Ten'Sarak camp leading up to the last HRPT, they'll remember a similar experience as I did in which all walks of Allanaki life were confined to that small region of the game. I loved it, it felt how the game should be to me. Mages shared very limited space with soldiers and nobles and templars, not to mention everyone else present at the time. This didn't mean everyone was chummy with the mages, but they still interacted with them (contrary to how it usually works in Allanak). It had one tavern and if you wanted to duck out and get some peace and quiet, it was likely in one of the very limited number of nearby tents, which probably had at least one or two PCs in them at any given time. It's funny how much more alive that tiny little camp felt compared to Allanak. As the new player in the quote above says, you can be hard pressed to find a single player even when there are 40 other players online! But players don't seem to want to pool together unless given a reason to do so.

I'd love to see more initiatives like what was done with Ten'Sarak to help centralize the playerbase, even if it's only for a short period of time. You don't have to destroy Allanak and turn the game into a bunch of tiny tent villages in order to make it feel more populated and more alive, just weave plots into the storyline which force people into tighter areas for a while. Famine, rioting, and threats from the outside world could all be wonderful excuses to temporarily quarantine certain areas, such that suddenly everyone is using only one tavern and milling about the surrounding area only while they wait for the storm to pass.

[Delirium]

quote author=Alesan link=topic=50061.msg911341#msg911341 date=1446826839]
I'm a relatively new player. I play because I have nothing better to do. Mostly I log on and hope for inspiration that never really comes. There's a lot of great roleplayers in the game but it's rare to see many of them gather in one place. I've seen peak hours top out at 40 players and the world seems empty and desolate of PCs. And then you guys want more places added to the game so there's even less PCs to be found. I have a feeling that even if the game world was restricted to Allanak, people would still be spread out in clans and apartments and it'd look very much the same as it does now.

Just idle thoughts.

Whoever wrote this had a really good point. For those players who were present at the Ten'Sarak camp leading up to the last HRPT, they'll remember a similar experience as I did in which all walks of Allanaki life were confined to that small region of the game. I loved it, it felt how the game should be to me. Mages shared very limited space with soldiers and nobles and templars, not to mention everyone else present at the time. This didn't mean everyone was chummy with the mages, but they still interacted with them (contrary to how it usually works in Allanak). It had one tavern and if you wanted to duck out and get some peace and quiet, it was likely in one of the very limited number of nearby tents, which probably had at least one or two PCs in them at any given time. It's funny how much more alive that tiny little camp felt compared to Allanak. As the new player in the quote above says, you can be hard pressed to find a single player even when there are 40 other players online! But players don't seem to want to pool together unless given a reason to do so.

I'd love to see more initiatives like what was done with Ten'Sarak to help centralize the playerbase, even if it's only for a short period of time. You don't have to destroy Allanak and turn the game into a bunch of tiny tent villages in order to make it feel more populated and more alive, just weave plots into the storyline which force people into tighter areas for a while. Famine, rioting, and threats from the outside world could all be wonderful excuses to temporarily quarantine certain areas, such that suddenly everyone is using only one tavern and milling about the surrounding area only while they wait for the storm to pass.

I remember that as well. Wile I think centralizing gathering areas is a great idea (I've long been a proponent of this), players should still have the freedom to come and go as they need or want, because otherwise you just end up feeling trapped, stifled, and bored once the "cool factor" of the new situation wears off. It gets achingly dull being confined to a tiny area of the gameworld.

[whitt]

But, players don't seem to want to pool together...

This is the truth of it.  It's Column A and Column B. 

Column A says - Players want everyone pooled together for more interaction but,

Column B says - they want this so that they can find a way -not- to be pooled together, thereby demonstrating they are doing something everyone else is not and having a sense of achievement. 

Push everyone together and try to keep them there?  Get complaints of stifling creativity and shrinking the game world.

Let everyone do as they wish?  And there's not enough people anywhere.

Fun game trying to balance A and B.   

[Norcal]

We're in a game where there's a lot of privileged information (IC or otherwise) so it doesn't always allow us to have a discussion about things up front.  The secrets, misinformation, and wild theories about how or why something is the way it is are part of the game's charm.   

I heard you'll be opening up the braxats to players as a sub-extended-subguild. And that Rathustra will be playing a Wyvern kit who gets raised by the Braxats til maturity, at which point he will set out to destroy Allanak and become the new sorcerer-king of Luir's.

Please confirm.

I heard this as well!  And Adhira will play a perfectly tressed she wyvern (with voluptuous wings) who seeks to subvert Rathvern  and steal the throne.

[Suhuy]

But, players don't seem to want to pool together...

This is the truth of it.  It's Column A and Column B.  

Column A says - Players want everyone pooled together for more interaction but,

Column B says - they want this so that they can find a way -not- to be pooled together, thereby demonstrating they are doing something everyone else is not and having a sense of achievement.  

Push everyone together and try to keep them there?  Get complaints of stifling creativity and shrinking the game world.

Let everyone do as they wish?  And there's not enough people anywhere.

Fun game trying to balance A and B.  

This is why I felt the situation in Ten'Sarak was so ideal -- and struck that balance you're talking about -- because it was a) not compulsory (players who were there went because they wanted to be there) and b) it was of a temporary nature. No one's saying players should be forced into tiny regions of the game indefinitely. I'm certainly not.

But, give players a reason to be stuck together to a smaller area for a temporary period of time. If some sort of disaster forced (or let's just say encouraged) people together for a while, I promise you once the threat is gone and they go back to their usually dispersed selves, they'll be pining for the "old days" when times were precarious and everyone had been holed up together. Not because they actually miss it, but because it's gone. Give, and then take away. Let nothing (or very little) be static. By accepting that too much space is as bad as too little space, you can frequently alter that balance to keep things interesting. Ten'Sarak wouldn't have been even half as fun if it were simply a new area open to the public evermore. It was neat because we all knew we weren't going to stay there for very long, and we'd likely never ever see it again after that.

[Lizzie]

The old Ten Sarak was fun too, pretty much for the same reasons. Luir's was closed because the mantis had invaded and sacked it, the entire Known World was in a flux, crazy shit was going on everywhere, and even in Ten Sarak you had to worry about raptors and mantises. Everyone knew it'd be temporary, but no one knew how long that extended vacation from "normal" was going to last.