GMH Conflict: Reflections and Replies

[nauta]

This is mostly for Desertman and to save RAT from GMH and acronym death.

My contribution: I think there's an important distinction between institutional (or built-in) sources of conflict and staff-driven sources of conflict.  From what I can tell, Dman's claim is something like:

I'm worried that the institutional conflict isn't there, even if staff-driven conflict is.

I'm feeling verklempt. Discuss.

[555]

I'm of the opinion that there's always plenty of reason for conflict. Conflict can take many forms. If someone has to die, either you or your enemy fucked up big-time, somewhere. PC death should actually be a last resort. In the words of, I think it was, Sun Tzu, "Every victory is also a funeral.". I worry that built-in conflict would, sooner or later, lead to a GMH declaring "There can be only one!", followed by mass-beheadings and consolidation of resources and employees under a single banner, Wal-mart. That said, staff are working really, really hard to keep things interesting and engaging, and I'm starting to see why many among staff "don't read the GDB", because it's starting to affect me negatively reading these seemingly demanding posts, but it's likely me misreading them.

Or maybe they're fishing for details which can't be given.

[Large Hero]

Resorting to murder (or at least getting caught) is already highly discouraged IC in the merchant/noble/Templar sphere, and that makes perfect sense and is a good thing.

The argument Dman has been making has never been about staff plots or staff efforts. It's always been about how players are motivated to act by the way the game is set up on the macro level, for 20 years. This has nothing to do with current staff or any individual staff member's efforts. It is in no way a criticism or indictment of staff.

What it has to do with is the game's economy/environment not accurately reflecting the game's themes of scarcity, competition and danger.

Applied to the GMH, it has these results:
there's no reason to care about having good hunters, because you don't need any to get whatever merchandise you want to sell.  

There's no reason to care about other Houses, for some reasons: 1) you don't compete with them for hunters because you don't need hunters, 2) you don't compete with them for resources because resources aren't scarce, 3) you don't compete with them for sales because you're in completely different areas.

There's also no reason to favor one VIP over another in terms of the goods you sell, since you have an essentially infinite supply. If I can only make one Fancy Feathered Hat, I have to decide which Noble is going to get it. That's a source of conflict; the unlucky noble will be offended, etc. As it stands, I can get five Fancy Feathered Hats if I want to.  I ask don't have to worry about Joe Salarr beating me to the punch on Fancy Feathered Hats. If a noble really wants it, they HAVE to go through me or hit the bricks, unless they go through staff.


Again, I have to stress that this has nothing to do with special/plot resources or items. It only has to do with motivators that are not directly resulting from staff actions, which are not in question.

[555]

Well, it sounds like the PLAYERS that don't care about getting a good hunting team together, gathering and promoting good help, etc. are to blame and not staff. On the one hand you'll have players complaining about getting "railroaded" into an unwanted plot or feeling like their actions have no impact on the plot's direction, and on the other you're suggesting staff make changes to the documentation in order to force players to do what they should already be taking the initiative to do, or so it seems to me. No thanks. It's not my fault, or anyone else's that some people just don't have an imagination when it comes to some things. I don't need compulsion to act, I am driven to, and I can't be the only one. I don't want the damn game spoon-fed to me, I'm perfectly capable of lifting my own spoon, thank you very much, I'm just grateful someone cooked it and put it on a plate and went so far as to bring it to me.

[Large Hero]

Again, nothing to do with staff.

It's about the coded aspects of the game. Because this isn't a MUSH, they're worth discussing. They should be tuned so as to provide external motivation for play that supports desired RP. As it stands, they don't.

[555]

Again, nothing to do with staff.

It's about the coded aspects of the game. Because this isn't a MUSH, they're worth discussing. They should be tuned so as to provide external motivation for play that supports desired RP. As it stands, they don't.

... and, I'm just going to assume you're fishing here.

EDIT: If you really want to know, there are some methods of finding out IC. I hate to resort to that statement, but I'm done speaking on the subject, I may have already said too much.

[manipura]

...so many good thoughts but specifically...

Applied to the GMH, it has these results:
there's no reason to care about having good hunters, because you don't need any to get whatever merchandise you want to sell.  

There's no reason to care about other Houses, for some reasons: 1) you don't compete with them for hunters because you don't need hunters, 2) you don't compete with them for resources because resources aren't scarce, 3) you don't compete with them for sales because you're in completely different areas.

Well, it sounds like the PLAYERS that don't care about getting a good hunting team together, gathering and promoting good help, etc. are to blame and not staff.

Not really sure where this thought came from.  Players try and put hunting groups together in game all the time.  A big difference is that when non-GMH groups do it it is much more difficult, they don't have GDB role calls for leaders for their group, when there isn't anyone in the group good enough to advance to that rank.
To imply that players disagreeing with the system that's been in place for twenty years must be players who don't care about making things happen in game is presumptuous and sort of shitty.

[manipura]

...I really don't think anyone is fishing for some great, super-sekrit IC game info that you or your PC is valiantly guarding in game.  They're just discussing issues.

Edit: fixing quote-issues due to phone-typing being a pain.

[Lizzie]

This thread was inspired when D-man posted about why GMH play is boring.

My opinion is that the entire reasoning is (probably unintentionally) a strawman, because it's based on the presumption that GMH play IS boring. I say - it's not. It can be, if there aren't enough players who are capable of working together to accomplish tasks. But that's the luck of the draw, and is true in all group situations, not specific to GMHs.

[555]

...I really don't think anyone is fishing for some great, super-sekrit IC game info that you or your PC is valiantly guarding in game.  They're just discussing issues.

Edit: fixing quote-issues due to phone-typing being a pain.

And, it's been said it's being looked at and worked on, what more do you want? Sorry if I seem a little testy, my attention is divided and I didn't get much sleep.

And here is your proof:

As GMH admin, I'm not going to explain the depth of GMH conflict in a thread where the explanation will get lost due to the fact that posts are thrown into it like garbage, to be forgotten within days. I'm also not going to explain current or future-planned plots. Rest assured that we're accounting for it.

Also merry Githmas.

[LauraMars]

555, people can talk about this, it's ok.  A new thread to discuss GMH issues was encouraged by staff, lest any useful ideas be lost in the bowels of Random Armageddon Thoughts. 

So please do chill.  Merry Githmas.

[Nergal]

In my opinion, the lack of built-in sources of conflict for GMHs is acceptable (but not ideal) if there is an acceptable amount of staff-started, player-driven conflict in its place. I had a long time to think about this: first as a storyteller for House Kurac/the Guild/another clan I don't even feel comfortable naming yet because it's specifically a clan put in place to cause conflict, and then secondly as the Admin for the GMH team overall.

The idea that GMH conflict has to be centered around the retail end of each House is somewhat lacking in depth. I have experimented so far with three different ways that GMH clans can cause conflict. #1 was arguably a success, as it caused conflict and is still ongoing in its ways. I would consider it "built-in" at this point. #2 & #3 are in-progress and are going well so far. There is plenty more potential for GMH conflict in the avenues of rare resource procurement, transportation of goods, and competition for employees. These are all things I am more willing to experiment with than what a GMH does or doesn't sell.

[JBlack]

This thread was inspired when D-man posted about why GMH play is boring.

My opinion is that the entire reasoning is (probably unintentionally) a strawman, because it's based on the presumption that GMH play IS boring. I say - it's not. It can be, if there aren't enough players who are capable of working together to accomplish tasks. But that's the luck of the draw, and is true in all group situations, not specific to GMHs.

Merchant house probably is boring at times to D-mans credit.

But Byn play can be boring... Damn byn schedule. Being by yourself, unclanned, can be dull too I assure you. You sit around and dont interact much or don't try to make it the experience you want, there's going to probably be lulls, and IMO it's not staff's responsibilty to make people's experience 100% conflict driven excitement. When I played as a gmh minion, I feel like I didn't get involved in some of it, and a tip to some leaders would be to trust peeps even if it a mistake sometimes and add character flaws that make more trouble to deal with.

Some dynamics like exclusive markets are part of the game world lore and shouldn't be whimsically changed, and probably won't be because staff has done a good job of making things work and be fun so far...

[Dresan]

It would be great if both Salarr and Kadius weren't practically the same clan, with the biggest difference is one has a much better designed compound.

They both hire hunters, crafters then hunt, make stuff, sell it, rinse and repeat. You can practically merge these two clans together and you wouldn't be losing much since they both offer the same experience.

Maybe instead of competing for the same hunters, one clan (perhaps the one with a more awkward training facility) could instead employee more merchants, crafters and  then contract hunting/gathering work out, buy resources it needs from people who might be fed up with joining the same old clans. I know kurac does/did(?) this for a bit.  I thought it was great.


It instead of adding NPC that buys those heavy resources such as logs, perhaps one of the houses would always be willing to take it off your hands.

[Refugee]

I've only played in a GMH for about 2 weeks with my second PC.  So consider that when reading this.

But from the outside, knowing lots of GMH PCs through the years...it seems like they're always embroiled in conflict, judging from the things my PCs are told.  Mostly internal conflict, it's true.

Is this not so?

[Erythil]

My experience playing Kurac was that they have plenty to do and plenty of sources of conflict on account of selling a heavily restricted good and policing their own territory.  Can't speak to the others.

[Taven]

I've only played in a GMH for about 2 weeks with my second PC.  So consider that when reading this.

But from the outside, knowing lots of GMH PCs through the years...it seems like they're always embroiled in conflict, judging from the things my PCs are told.  Mostly internal conflict, it's true.

Is this not so?

I played some kid once who wanted to be in the Byn. He was too young and the Byn rejected him, so a Fale noble who was randomly there told him to go to Kadius. He became a Kadian hunter and got shipped north. There he had a lovely time chasing the young Tuluki girl around with bugs and making her scream. He was convinced he seduced some woman and was very proud of himself, never learning that she was a whore Kadius had thoughtfully and secretly hired for him. He also gave names of southern and northern nobles to the opposite sides. Life was good!

Until one day a Faithful told him to with her. He Wayed his southern boss, and she told him to run away. So he did. The other Kadians tried to get him to come out of the Estate, and the Second Hunter (southern) finally did, by promising to go with him... He didn't. And my little kid was never seen again.

What I didn't learn until years later was that behind the scenes the southern and northern Kadian Overseers HATED each other. Everyone in Kadius in the north assumed I had been sent down by her as a spy to figure out what she was doing. Meanwhile, the Faithful were trying to raise taxes on Friel's Rest (IIRC), which years ago had belonged solely to Kadius. My southern boss insisted that they still didn't own Friel's, and didn't want to pay--The Faithful didn't like her, and it meant hassle for the Kadian north.

My very oblivious PC was killed by the Faithful to send a message to my southern boss. Also, running from templars pisses them off. Cool death scene, though not knowing any of the background, I assumed the templar was PK happy. I didn't play any PCs anywhere near the north until after she was dead.

[Dresan]

I was once pked by a couple of people. I thought something was really odd about the way they managed to co-ordinate in order to PK me. The staff told me everything was fine so I forgot about it. Later I found out that, there was indeed something oocly unfair about the people who pked me. Thats about as much context as I've ever gotten from being killed.  

I don't know or talk with anyone here oocly, i don't have people on messenger or meet with others, and my characters are ICly very seperate from each other so I've never gotten to figure out why things have happened to previous character.

Just random people, killing my character for who knows what reasons.  Such is life though.  

/derail

I will agree that much of the conflict of GMH's is internal. Alot of the time, that conflict feels rather petty, to me at least, others probably feel different.

[555]

EDIT: On second thought, rather agreeable post deleted. Needs more negativity and hostility.

[Jave]

Since I first replied to Dman in the RAT, I'll reply to him again here:

I may never have been high enough up in a Merchant House to ever get to that incredibly covert House on House economic conflict driven by the lack of resources in a resource poor environment.

What I can tell you is I've never actually seen it as a player.......ever.

I have never once seen House Hunter B lead his/her group of hunters with the mindset that the hunters/merchants from House A are their competition.

It may happen and it's just so incredibly covert nobody ever hears about it and these House Hunters are so incredibly good at keeping secrets the secrets never ever get out to anyone.

But, then again, I think it's probably more likely that the conflict being spoken about is so high up the chain that most House employees never get to even experience it, so in reality, it is pointless on the front I am talking about......which is making conflict for House players from top to bottom....not just for the extremely sparing few who happen to break through to find out what's going on.

I have had similar experiences as a player. But one has to accept that their personal experience is only a small fraction of the over all activity going on in game. We are bursting with stories of ground level characters being used as tools by the powerful without ever knowing the reason behind what they are doing.

Also, while roads are made from oil and fuel is made from oil I can tell you that BIG 4 Road Construction does not consider Exxon Valdez a competitor, and they never compete.

That reasoning doesn't work for the same reason Wal-Mart doesn't compete with Target because clothes hangers are made from plastic and both deal in clothes hangers. They might compete in the "clothes hanger market", but they aren't competing for plastic. You know who is? The two companies who make plastic.
The reasons corporations compete, and this in my opinion translates to the game world, is because their end-game is the same.

Hamburgers and Steak are both made from cows, but McDonalds is not competing with five star high-end steak houses.....they just aren't in the same markets. They don't care about each other. Their end-game isn't the same.

This is untrue. The two companies in your example do not compete with one another directly, but they do compete with one another in attempting to secure a better deal than the other has from their suppliers.

For example, I work for an export company that specializes in automobiles and while we compete with other export companies that specialize in automobiles directly, we compete indirectly with every exporter in attempting to secure better freight rates with our shipping partners, who pit us against one another for space on their vessels to drive their own profits up.

It's complicated, but it's there, and as the Director for my geographic region, I spend equal time focused on my end user competition as I do on my supply chain competition because both are equally important to our bottom line.

[Jave]

I think that if we made the GMH's all create the same goods rather than specializing in different areas we would have a nasty bloody war for about a RL month, and then one, one-stop GMH that made everything, and murdered every single indy group that ever tried to poke their head up to be competition again. --- Which would be even less entertaining than what we have now.

This is where you step in as a staffer and don't let "the armies go to war".

Staff can and should regulate this. Let the players drive their player-on-player conflict, but keep IC reasons in place with upper command to prevent the Houses from going to annihilation war. The only way such a war would happen is if staff allowed it to happen and orchestrated it.

We both know players can't wipe out Houses without staff helping them, and in reality, doing it.

Give the upper command the mindset that a few hunters and merchants (the PC's) going the way of the dodo from time to time through House conflict in the field is an expected and acceptable cost of doing business.

"Yes First Hunter? You say one of House Salarr's hundreds of hunters killed one of ours? What do you want me to do about it? Fuck off First Hunter. I am busy and doing very important things. You take care of this shit yourself. Don't come to me every time you take a piss either. For fuck's sake. Be a leader and fuck their shit up right back or I will get someone with a spine.".

This keeps them from IC'ly going to war to wipe each other out and keeps an avenue open for players to compete with each other on the economic front in a meaningful top to bottom way.

The only way it would result in what you are saying it would result in is if staff did it. Players literally can't.

As for these GMH's murdering every single indy group in game, you can easily remedy this too. Preach the mindset from upper command that a House with thousands of employees and multiple compounds throughout the world simply doesn't care about the tiny flea on the back of the tiny insect that is comparably these indy groups. It would be like a noble going into the rinth to find that one rinther who owns a silk bracelet to cut their throat for the world to see because they are, "trying to be a noble like me!!!!". Explain it is goofy and silly and makes no IC sense, so don't do it. What can you do? Tax those indy groups for your own PC to PC personal gain in wealth. Utilize them as your merchant House leader to better your own personal goals. Every goal you have doesn't have to be a House-goal. Use them to help facilitate your own personal wealth or use them to help your own personal agenda....and if they won't play ball.....then annihilate them for not bending to your whims (not because you are pretending them selling baskets is ruining your House's market).

When we do as you suggest here we are immediately painted as playing favorites, and trying to railroad PC's into a pre-determined outcome for reasoning ranging from spite, to having a pet avatar in the clan we're protecting, to having beef with the players involved.

It is true that players cannot wipe out an entire GMH without staff support in theory. But they don't need staff support to do it in practice. They just have to murder every single new PC who tries to join a competing clan, thus rendering all other clans virtual, and largely inaccessible to the player base on a day to day level. -- And when we try to step in and remedy this, see above.

[Tuannon]

I always promoted peer justice for the old "Your hunter killed mine" scenarios.

Not that they happened, most of the shit in Kadius back in the day was revolving around magicker infiltration and crafter poaching.

[KankWhisperer]

There is a lot of conflict between the GMHs in my personal opinion, but unless you are in the GMH's and not some scrub you might never know it.

The lower levels GMH employees may really hate each other but as you get higher I believe you're not really that interested in eliminating your peers, but just getting the better of them. You don't always want to kill a rival more inept than you. Their replacement might be more competent than you. That doesn't mean that it is not encouraged for low level employees to despise, malign, or murder other low level employees. I think this is what desertman considers the cost of doing business and also a way for low level employees to demonstrate their loyalty and competence. If you get into a public squabble with the other House's employees that's probably you just blowing off steam. Any real killings should be done quietly with no one ever finding out. Getting rid of them might be okay, getting caught is not.

[Majikal]

Played in Kadius as a hunter, a First Hunter, a Merchant.
Played in Salarr as Expansion division, Sergeant, Corporal, merchant.
Never really played in Kurac cause of personal taste.

I've never had a GMH pc that wasn't involved in MCB, murdering superiors for promotion, assassinations, murdering troublesome underlings, even full blown kadius on salarri brawls in the desert, maybe it's cause I shake shit up. If they're isn't enough conflict for your liking you're doing it wrong. #getgud #mcb

Also, if you're not in a GMH. Chances are you just aren't privy to the sly shit going on, most conflict isn't in your face or advertised.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

Last time I was in Kadius (and I never stir shit up on my own) there was a _ton_ of conflict, and I spent most of my time there as a recruit so I didn't see as much.

The first time I was there it was much calmer, but this was at a point where most other merchant house people weren't around and the templarate was busy with something else. The others that made up Kadius also didn't seem to be interested in more than a normal-ish amount of conflict either (telling me their small secrets, etc.) But it only really takes one person to start conflict. (Loosely related) I still remember Jarls because he killed a number of notable and tough pcs and attempted to kill at least one more. That guy started a world of conflict by himself.