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.