Conflict: Striking a Balance

[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).