Known History and Player Involvement

[WarriorPoet]

I vaguely recall this being discussed before but I couldn't find the thread, so....

1394 (Year 8 Age 19)
The joint forces of the Clear Waters Oasis tribe and the Ironsword clan attack Allanak's obsidian mine, managing to free the slaves. Thrain Ironsword dies in the battle along with several templars. After the attack the Clear Waters Oasis tribe, joined by a horde of former slaves, lay siege to Allanak. During this time, Tektolnes is mysteriously absent.

Thrain was a PC. I know this because I had the pleasure of playing, later on, with the player.

My question is where on the timeline did the living player-made history begin? Thrain was mid-90's, I think. Where on the timeline did the actual pre-permadeath and RPI version of Arm begin? How many of the events on the timeline before this were player-made or involved?

[Desertman]

I'm interested in this as well.

While we are going back this far in time I have another to tack on.

I SWEAR I read many years ago that the dwarven race as a whole was more or less a race of slaves at one point.

I am having a hard time finding it in the documentation now. I'm starting to wonder if I just imagined that?

Weren't dwarves for the most part a slave race at one point until they were "liberated" by Thrain?

[Delirium]

If I'm going to be totally honest, reading the history page makes me sad.

Things in those days just seemed more... epic in scale. Open to possibility. Player-led AND staff-supported. Thrain. Blackmoon. The rebellion. The conclave. Others.

IMO, they worked largely because they had a defensible base to operate out of. It's impossible to keep players together without one.

These days getting yourself a piddly little tent camp, much less a base, is essentially impossible, unless you're working out of a city and with the Templarate.

While creating a player-led clan is possible, you can only create a merchant house, which doesn't fit all concepts.

Bring back player-created outlaw clans and tribes. Bring back some of that open-world, epic feel.

[Jherlen]

I recall someone telling me a story about how Thrain Ironsword pulled up to them in the desert while driving a wagon, and ordered his inix pulling the wagon to say "Get in." rather than having to go out and say it himself. So while stuff was maybe more epic back then, it sounded like the standards were a bit... less.

[CodeMaster]

I'm interested in this as well.

While we are going back this far in time I have another to tack on.

I SWEAR I read many years ago that the dwarven race as a whole was more or less a race of slaves at one point.

I am having a hard time finding it in the documentation now. I'm starting to wonder if I just imagined that?

Weren't dwarves for the most part a slave race at one point until they were "liberated" by Thrain?

In the language help file it's mentioned:
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Mirukkim

[Delirium]

I recall someone telling me a story about how Thrain Ironsword pulled up to them in the desert while driving a wagon, and ordered his inix pulling the wagon to say "Get in." rather than having to go out and say it himself. So while stuff was maybe more epic back then, it sounded like the standards were a bit... less.

While that's a cute anecdote, I don't see what that has to do with being willing to fully support player-led initiative.

Much about the game has changed, some for the better, some not.

OT, I'm fairly certain that the playable history begins between these two dates:

1389 (Year 3 Age 19)
The first Defiler in over 1500 years is found and killed outside of Tuluk. Ancient texts resurface which detail much of Defiler magick.

1394 (Year 8 Age 19)
The joint forces of the Clear Waters Oasis tribe and the Ironsword clan attack Allanak's obsidian mine, managing to free the slaves. Thrain Ironsword dies in the battle along with several templars. After the attack the Clear Waters Oasis tribe, joined by a horde of former slaves, lay siege to Allanak. During this time, Tektolnes is mysteriously absent.

[WarriorPoet]

OT, I'm fairly certain that the playable history begins between these two dates:

1389 (Year 3 Age 19)
The first Defiler in over 1500 years is found and killed outside of Tuluk. Ancient texts resurface which detail much of Defiler magick.

1394 (Year 8 Age 19)
The joint forces of the Clear Waters Oasis tribe and the Ironsword clan attack Allanak's obsidian mine, managing to free the slaves. Thrain Ironsword dies in the battle along with several templars. After the attack the Clear Waters Oasis tribe, joined by a horde of former slaves, lay siege to Allanak. During this time, Tektolnes is mysteriously absent.

I was assuming this was the case but I didn't know how much of the timeline actually happened in the 'pre RPI' days.

I started playing after the Academy bombing and before the liberation of Luirs because I believe I remember my first Byn Trooper dying there. Been a long time but I think Sujaal was still a sergeant then.

Anyway, thanks for the answer. The History page is the main reason I started seriously playing here way back when. It was so rich, mysterious and well written I had to get in on it. And now, 15 years later give or take, I can read the updated doc and take immense satisfaction knowing I was involved in a lot of the wackiness contained there.

[Jherlen]

I recall someone telling me a story about how Thrain Ironsword pulled up to them in the desert while driving a wagon, and ordered his inix pulling the wagon to say "Get in." rather than having to go out and say it himself. So while stuff was maybe more epic back then, it sounded like the standards were a bit... less.

While that's a cute anecdote, I don't see what that has to do with being willing to fully support player-led initiative.

To expand a bit, my point was that standards for everything seem a bit higher now than they were in the past. A higher bar to clear means more effort required (both by staff and players) to do something consequential. I imagine it was easier to create and destroy clans when they weren't so tightly woven into the world of Zalanthas as they are today.

So whereas before Thrain could take up his steel sword and declare he was starting an army with the intent to free all the dwarves in Allanak and they were laying seige to the city, and get staff support because the focus of the game was around player conflict with the world as a backdrop, today we would think some dwarf trying to pull the same thing off was insane, and he'd quickly be dealt with by the nearest Blue robe. Today the world isn't just a convenient fantasy backdrop, it's... well, a world, that we want to feel immersive and therefore consistent.

There are pros and cons to both approaches and I'm not saying that player-led initatives shouldn't ever be supported, I'm just maybe trying to un-rose the rose colored glasses a bit.

[Delirium]

You make a good point Jherlen. There was a lot of wacky nonsense, but I posit we've gone too far in the "gritty harsh realism!!!" direction.

I would at least like to see a structure in place for something other than mercantile clans. Getting something off the ground which would impact a substantial portion of the playerbase, both directly and indirectly, feels almost impossible when you struggle to reach that elusive and often arbitrary tipping point of "do I have enough players directly involved in this initiative for staff to agree to do something about it".

It's especially tough when you see staff opening whole (previously closed or virtual) clans, but refusing to support your own player-run efforts.

[Armaddict]

As far as the epic scale of things...

Remember that in those times, those were what RPTs were, what they were defined as.  Staff-led, player-driven changes to the world at large.  At these times, there was a lot of player uproar about how even though players got to be in the forefront of it, they didn't feel like they had any actual control over the events; it was going to happen with or without them, they were just along for the ride.  Their decisions changed how things happened, but not whether they did happen (which was actually untrue as far as I could tell).

Anyway.  What ended up happening was a big discussion over it, which led to a new staff policy (that I'm not sure if it's still around) where players would do the plotting.  Players would arrange the course of things.  Staff would okay things, still, but it was no longer their job to drive the game forward.

I don't think it's so much about 'bases', though they're helpful.  I think it's about not having necessity to do things to survive, as a group.  With staff-run plots going in every clan, with staff members always interested in the progression of their own clans, there was always some 'higher up' crash course set that inevitably led to these sorts of things, whereas players in charge tend to be both lower profile and far more careful.  Tor decided they were reclaiming a fort.  The Arm wanted to expand here.  Kurac wanted their spice running to grow in strength.  These were examples of directives from a staffer where they built it into an event; when a player has the same inclinations, we are told it can or can't be worked on, and we do our own work.  The result is that it's usually smaller in scale, but this is pretty much how the playerbase said they wanted it.

We flip around a lot. (i.e. Buff rangers!  Nerf rangers!)

[Erythil]

Part of the appeal of Dark Sun is being a bunch of renegade good guys who can fight the evil power.

This used to happen on this game but now everything is heavily weighted towards being the evil power. 

I'd play the shit out of some Mal Krian style good guys.

[Jihelu]

It's hard to be good when the ultimate evil is where the entire game takes place.
God damnit tek

[BadSkeelz]

Good guys are boring and usually played in disgusting ways, anyway.

[WarriorPoet]

Good guys are boring and usually played in disgusting ways, anyway.

Good and evil are for heavy metal music and comic books.

[Armaddict]

The point I keep trying to get at is that good guys can still be antagonists to other good guys.  We aren't all bonded together in the fight against the tyranny of desert spiders.  Criminals think they're the good guys, so do soldiers.  Some do, at least.  Kurac thinks they're the good guys, Salarr thinks they are.

Everyone can be antagonists and protagonists at the same time.  Which is more of the Zalanthas that I come from, that I constantly try to allude to with posts on conflict.

While I don't think we'll be seeing things of the previous RPT scale, I -do- think there's some super exciting warring to be done by players, if they just...get willing to do it.

[nauta]

I'd love to see more history discussed inside the game.

Also: protip: searching on the main website does not search the chronology page.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd love to see more history discussed inside the game.

Also: protip: searching on the main website does not search the chronology page.

Look at murals whenever you see one in the room description. There's a few in Allanak that touch on and expand events from the City's history.

While I don't think we'll be seeing things of the previous RPT scale, I -do- think there's some super exciting warring to be done by players, if they just...get willing to do it.

I have a theory that as the player base has aged, we're no longer willing to risk PCs with dozens or hundreds of hours of invested playtime over essentially petty plots. Players of long-lived characters act to protect their investment by squashing plots (and snuffing our shorter-live characters). They also band together to protect themselves, which is why you see clans and alliances full of long-lived PCs. The game's pretty much calcified, but it can be made lively again with just a dozen or so murders.

[Jingo]

Part of the appeal of Dark Sun is being a bunch of renegade good guys who can fight the evil power.

This used to happen on this game but now everything is heavily weighted towards being the evil power.  

I'd play the shit out of some Mal Krian style good guys.

Its the old underdog rebel trope. It's not that the rebels are "Good Guys" it's more along the lines that they're fighting a much more powerful enemy against all odds. Because of the cultural cachet behind it though we like to call these guys the "Good Guys" even when their morality is probably as grey as all the other dudes. (Except when they're brown and fighting us we call them terrorists.)

I would also like to play the shit out of them.

[Armaddict]

I have a theory that as the player base has aged, we're no longer willing to risk PCs with dozens or hundreds of hours of invested playtime over essentially petty plots. Players of long-lived characters act to protect their investment by squashing plots (and snuffing our shorter-live characters). They also band together to protect themselves, which is why you see clans and alliances full of long-lived PCs. The game's pretty much calcified, but it can be made lively again with just a dozen or so murders.

While I disagree with what you've stated to be the motives, I think we're in agreement on the state of the game and the older playerbase.  I've been referring to it as risk aversion and often tie it in with seeing skills (no risks until I know I'm better equipped to deal with them), but you are correct as well.  The gist of it is...I think in the past people were much more willing to sacrifice their character for their cause, which was against <insert group here, clan-based or not>, and in turn, there was a lot more strife for everyone.  It's hard to fight a group that is willing to risk it.  It forces you to risk it as well.

In it's current state, being incredibly patient for the opportune moment is -easy-.  Almost no one does pre-emptive strikes.  Almost no one is forcing hands to make plays more sloppy, just because it has to be done.  I think as the playerbase as aged, as you said, there was a movement away from the often frivolous PK of the former game into the opposite extreme, where warring is viewed as a slight against other players.  We need a happy medium that makes sense for the game world.

As a side note...I think this would also do well to involve people who -are- interested in that element of roleplay.  Some people are happy with where things are, which is fine.  Some people think it's stagnant, because there's not enough conflict; that is also a valid opinion.  A little more of a shift to accomodate those with the latter can be done without completely alienating the former.  I think, anyway.

[Desertman]

I think one of the issues is that there really isn't anything to do with a long-lived arguably powerful character once you reach that point other than "stay alive".

There isn't shit worth risking yourself for because the options to actually go about doing anything meaningful/lasting simply don't exist.

So yes, people do seem opposed to risking their characters more these days, but the solution isn't, "Kill them.".

The solution should be, "Provide them with actual realistic outlets that make risking their character worth the risk.".

There should be a feasible Risk vs Reward system...not a Risk For No Reason system.

[Armaddict]

I think one of the issues is that there really isn't anything to do with a long-lived arguably powerful character once you reach that point other than "stay alive".

There isn't shit worth risking yourself for because the options to actually go about doing anything meaningful/lasting simply don't exist.

So yes, people do seem opposed to risking their characters more these days, but the solution isn't, "Kill them.".

The solution should be, "Provide them with actual realistic outlets that make risking their character worth the risk.".

There should be a feasible Risk vs Reward system...not a Risk For No Reason system.

This is more true for a long-lived independent than a long-lived clannie.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd agree with Addict here. Unless something has changed in the past couple of years, someone in an established clan can make some serious history, but it's not easy (nor ought it be). It is a lot easier than doing some on your own (unclanned).

[dravage]

In RPI MUDs like ARM you'll always get the back and forth over time between mostly staff-led events, and a reliance on players to do this themselves (a big reason for this is staff resources or lack thereof). Right now the balance is definitely weighted towards player initiative, but I believe there's always a need for a healthy dose of staff-run RPTs, plotlines, new areas etc, to keep things fresh.

A great way to mobilize folks is to introduce the treasure-hunt mechanic for major plots: essentially place value on a certain place, item, person, and give PCs a reason to go off and track it down and bring it home. Release the info to a few clans, and let them compete for said thing. Ideally, open new (small) areas with challenging creatures or traps that would provide a dangerous element.

Is it fair to say that there's an HRPT once per RL year here on ARM?

[Suhuy]

I think one thing that would help the current predicament is for characters to have something to feel passionate about. Aside from day to day squabbles, they currently don't.

What I mean is, a cause. And for that to happen you need some sort of injustice (or perceived injustice). You can't have that with tarantulas as enemies, or even with gith. Human to human conflict is infinitely more likely to inspire players, in my opinion.

How great would it be if a splinter group of Tulukis fled into exile and tried to amass a following in the wilds somewhere, preparing for the day they launch an assault on what they see as their taken homeland. Or for a noble house in Allanak to be forced into exile, bringing with them their followers loyal to their cause and willing to see their former city-state as the enemy? Where would they go? And what groups outside of Allanak's walls would see them as friends, and what groups would see them as foe?

The best period of Arm for me was during the Rebellion. It was a classic Cowboys and Indians setting, where one group was smaller and oppressed and the other a mighty and powerful empire. I'm not talking good versus evil, simply big and powerful Group A fighting small guerilla Group B. If that existed on some level today, you can bet characters would have something to feel passionate about. It didn't work when it was Tuluk and Allanak because they were on equal footing. That won't create passion.

Some of this can be derived entirely from the players, but most of the really good stuff (that happens on a larger scale, as in the examples above) require staff support. It has to be everyone involved, a joint player-staff endeavor, for something like this to happen.

[Jingo]

It wouldn't go anywhere short of significant staff support. The reigning authority would have it on lockdown in a handful of days and try to kill it if they don't.

[nauta]

What I mean is, a cause. And for that to happen you need some sort of injustice (or perceived injustice). You can't have that with tarantulas as enemies, or even with gith. Human to human conflict is infinitely more likely to inspire players, in my opinion.

An intelligent (partially PC-populated) enemy grinding away in the background.

ETA: An enemy you can murder, corrupt, and betray, not just murder.

[Armaddict]

I'd agree with Addict here. Unless something has changed in the past couple of years, someone in an established clan can make some serious history, but it's not easy (nor ought it be). It is a lot easier than doing some on your own (unclanned).

While this is somewhat true (I think people can make changes IF they are making changes that appeal to the powers that be, and IF they are lucky and persistent), this wasn't really the point I was trying to make.  My point was that this feeling was actually the one we asked for.  It's funny when you see the playerbase swing back and forth on things without seeming to realize it, is all; at one point, the game was rigged and not worth playing, and now our problem is we can't get involved in huge impact story arcs anymore, because those required a staffer to run.

However, if we remove the idea that actual change has to come about from the actions, and instead make it more about fleshed out characters...then it gets much more interesting, at least, rather than what it feels like to me now;  the PC population is unified in their wait for an enemy to appear.  This is why the raider or the rogue or whoever becomes an enemy of the state/whatever is often dogpiled.  It feels like we're in such a rush to band together in agreement about who protagonist/antagonist are in a game where that line is supposed to be very blurry.  I'm sure I sound like a broken record sometimes, but I'm just seeing another case where I think the contributor is us, the players...not the staff.  While I'm very very much in 100% agreement that staff run events are awesome and add to the game and allow for players to be involved in noticeable things in the game world, I think there is also the responsibility of players to acknowledge that the mentality we've adopted is one that is more focused on subterfuge and minor prods at each other rather than true conflict between the much fewer clans and groups that we have.

This response:

I think one of the issues is that there really isn't anything to do with a long-lived arguably powerful character once you reach that point other than "stay alive".

There isn't shit worth risking yourself for because the options to actually go about doing anything meaningful/lasting simply don't exist.

So yes, people do seem opposed to risking their characters more these days, but the solution isn't, "Kill them.".

The solution should be, "Provide them with actual realistic outlets that make risking their character worth the risk.".

There should be a feasible Risk vs Reward system...not a Risk For No Reason system.

This is more true for a long-lived independent than a long-lived clannie.

...was more intended to qualify what was said rather than try to counter it or make it irrelevant; I think people in coded clans receive more direction and goals for their characters by default.  Clans have foci that can keep your character involved and give them Casus Belli (heh) based off of what they do, whereas Independents really can hit a point where they've gotten what they need and are now...just waiting to be involved in the factionalism of the hard-coded clans.  If that makes sense.

I would definitely love to see more world-changing events happen from time to time.  But given that staff not doing that often is actually what we asked them to do way back in....2005 or 2007 or something...I'm not going to turn and say it's them not allowing us to do things.

[Delirium]

If plots are going to be in the hands of players, players need to be empowered with the ability to run game-changing shit. Anonymity, camps, SOMETHING. The ability to take on other organizations if you're smart, clever, and persistent enough, instead of it being like an ant nibbling at the toe of a silt giant.

We still have the issue where it's so hard to actually push anything through that for entertainment most people are resorting to "Days Of Our Lives" style plots. Where any hint of being an outlaw, or anyone who operates against the interests of the city-states gets you dogpiled on faster than you can say "crap, that one person saw me and now everyone knows my name, desc, and commonly worn gear, because the entirety of Zalanthas is equivalent to a high school auditorium."

So yeah, without staff support, players are very limited in what sort of compelling, game-spanning plots they can push.

Until then you're essentially limited to your own small corner of the game, piddling around doing your own small thing. Which is fine and fun, but gets old.

[Desertman]

In my experience there seems to be a mindset issue.

The mindset as I have seen it seems extremely geared to lean towards, "What can I do to make this not happen for the players involved?".

It seems like we have taken the IC theme of, "The world is harsh and hard.", and unfortunately carried that over into OOC policies. In my opinion and experience it seems to have resulted in staff carrying a stick with them at all times that reads, "I have to ensure this is almost impossible for you because the game is supposed to be hard.".

The only way things get accomplished is if a staff member decides they want it to happen, it doesn't matter what you do IC'ly to earn it, there WILL be a gate in your way until the gatekeeper decides they like the idea of what you are doing. No amount of IC effort or work will trump this personal preference.

The mindset shouldn't be, "They will only be allowed to accomplish this if I decide I like it personally or I'm the one who created it.".

The mindset should be, "They have jumped through the right hoops and put in a lot of effort. I may not care for it personally, but, they have earned it.".

If someone wants to create a camp out in the desert and they have four or five PC's with them and they all put together a big sack of money, gather a few hundred planks/logs/poles/insert building materials, and get some crafters to help them build said camp...and then spend the IC time roleplaying building it...they should have a camp.

As it sits the only way that camp will exist is if the project in question fits a plotline most likely created by staff for the players, or if a staffer decides they personally like the idea being presented.

If one of those isn't the case, you could put together triple the money, people, and resources needed for it to exist on an IC level, and OOC'ly it will never be allowed to exist.

I think the BIGGEST negative outcome this has on the game is that players STOP TRYING to accomplish things. They KNOW they most likely are going to be shutdown OOC'ly no matter how much IC effort they put in, so they don't even try.

The way things are effectively destroys the desire for a lot of players to try and do great/neat/interesting/new things. We have created a system that destroys the plotlines before they ever even begin to get started.

How many long-lived characters with fortunes would you see trying to do more great things if this weren't the case?

Why risk their characters and their fortunes/clout/influence to try and do things that matter when it's not the IC barriers that bother them but the OOC barriers?

It's something to consider.

[Delirium]

Everything about the above post. Every word.

[Armaddict]

I recently phrased that mindset issue in a different way in my head, I think.  A lot of the times, staff gets reduced down to an approval committee.  Mastercrafts.  Idea submissions.  Plot submissions.  Player requests.  It's a constant stream of 'Yay or nay?!'.  Inevitably, having that become the role rather than the storyteller/event planner of yore results in there being a more critical view of 'Do we let this go through or not?'.  Letting a bunch of things pass through an approval committee can start to feel like you're not doing your job well.

However, this leads to things being examined under a microscope.  In a game as established as this, where everything is pretty much dictated by documentation and code...almost everything will end up looking out of place for SOME reason if you look at it closely enough from unfavorable vantage points; i.e. if you don't want something to be acceptable, it's very easy to find a reason that it was unacceptable.  This is why that lean that you're speaking of ends up being detrimental.  If you start looking at all the things players are trying to do with a lean towards the 'no', it's -very- easy to find a reason for the 'no', precisely because we do have such rich documentation and established practices.  But it ends up becoming limiting, at a certain degree.

My point is less that 'things are fine', and more that I think there's still plenty of lemonade to be made by the players.  I think the appropriate shifts and adjustments can be made on both sides of this coin if players can demonstrate that they actually want these things they say the game needs, i.e. conflict and risks-taken-to-make-their-mark.

[Desertman]

I would propose a new staffing role filled by two or three people.

Their job isn't to approve new characters, or build mastercrafts, or resolve bugs or typos.

Their job is one thing and one thing only: "Dungeon Master for third-party player driven plotlines.".

This would include creating small but fun side plots for non-sponsored roles.
This might include small meaningless but interesting animations to open up plotlines for players.
It would of course include working with players to help them develop (and provide accurate opposition where needed) and forward their own plotlines and goals they are working towards.


Merchant House staff can still do Merchant House things.
AOD/Templar staff can still do their AOD and Templar stuff.
Etc...etc...

These new staffers would exist specifically to provide small time plots for the playerbase as a whole (including clanned players, not just independents, it just wouldn't be a KADIUS PLOT, for example) with no other focus but the day to day fun and enjoyment of the players.

They would also have a large focus in helping players who are trying to accomplish fun but non-world-shattering goals get to where they are going.

For example, they would be the staffers in charge of laying out guidelines, correct opposition, and correct assistance for six or seven people who are trying to build a camp.

It might not always result in, "A success.", but the success SHOULDN'T be measured in, "Did my group accomplish and fulfill my predetermined plotline I created for them?". The success SHOULD be measured in, "Did my players have fun and are they likely to try to do more fun things in the future because of their experience?", if you get a "Yes.", you are doing your "job" as said staffer.

New Staffing Role/Rank: "Story Cultivator".

[Jihelu]

I would propose a new staffing role filled by two or three people.

Their job isn't to approve new characters, or build mastercrafts, or resolve bugs or typos.

Their job is one thing and one thing only: "Dungeon Master for third-party player driven plotlines.".

This would include creating small but fun side plots for non-sponsored roles.
This might include small meaningless but interesting animations to open up plotlines for players.
It would of course include working with players to help them develop (and provide accurate opposition where needed) and forward their own plotlines and goals they are working towards.


Merchant House staff can still do Merchant House things.
AOD/Templar staff can still do their AOD and Templar stuff.
Etc...etc...

These new staffers would exist specifically to provide small time plots for the playerbase as a whole (including clanned players, not just independents, it just wouldn't be a KADIUS PLOT, for example) with no other focus but the day to day fun and enjoyment of the players.

They would also have a large focus in helping players who are trying to accomplish fun but non-world-shattering goals get to where they are going.

For example, they would be the staffers in charge of laying out guidelines, correct opposition, and correct assistance for six or seven people who are trying to build a camp.

It might not always result in, "A success.", but the success SHOULDN'T be measured in, "Did my group accomplish and fulfill my predetermined plotline I created for them?". The success SHOULD be measured in, "Did my players have fun and are they likely to try to do more fun things in the future because of their experience?", if you get a "Yes.", you are doing your "job" as said staffer.

New Staffing Role/Rank: "Story Cultivator".

This reminds me of how in some games players can make their own plots and guide them out.

Would people in this position be able to have characters?

[BadSkeelz]

New Staffing Role/Rank: "Story Cultivator".

Meh. Another bureaucratic hoop to jump through. I'd rather have more coded abilities to do things, more resources, with staff in the background manipulating those resources and characters fighting over them with minimal paperwork. You wouldn't have to ask Staff to explore a ruin or find an oasis if such things randomly appeared and disappeared with the shifting sands.

[Doublepalli]

I second everything Desertman is saying!

[Jherlen]

While I don't disagree with Desertman, I do think that "Story Cultivator" does sound a lot like "Storyteller" already. Maybe the solution is to take a look at changes that might help existing staff members have more time / ability / permission to cultivate and tell stories themselves, and also make it easier for staff to enable player-driven goals?

[Nergal]

It's probably true that more things that players have done ought to be on the history page. This definitely is not:

The mindset as I have seen it seems extremely geared to lean towards, "What can I do to make this not happen for the players involved?".

It seems like we have taken the IC theme of, "The world is harsh and hard.", and unfortunately carried that over into OOC policies. In my opinion and experience it seems to have resulted in staff carrying a stick with them at all times that reads, "I have to ensure this is almost impossible for you because the game is supposed to be hard.".

The only way things get accomplished is if a staff member decides they want it to happen, it doesn't matter what you do IC'ly to earn it, there WILL be a gate in your way until the gatekeeper decides they like the idea of what you are doing. No amount of IC effort or work will trump this personal preference.

The mindset shouldn't be, "They will only be allowed to accomplish this if I decide I like it personally or I'm the one who created it.".

What a waste of time staffing would be if we didn't support what players wanted to accomplish, or at least describe the path it would take to get there so that they could take that path in-game. Considering that we do, indeed, exist for that purpose, it would be confusing why there are even staff at all if the above quote was at all true.

It's our job to consider every factor, both in- and out-of-character when we support a plot or run one ourselves. When we say "no" it is typically with a "but". If you don't get a "but" right away then you're allowed to ask for one. The camp example has been brought up time and time again and is distorted and contrived to the point of ridiculousness. Try something in-game and see how it works out.

I'll stop short of outright calling some players here on their bullshit, but come on. You know who you are and you know what you've been able to do with current and past characters. Let's just leave it at that.

Story Cultivator idea

Staff as a whole run plots and help players with their own plots and do little and big animations because it's a fun thing we like to do. There isn't a matter of us being so distracted that we can't find the time to do fun things. There's typically multiple staff-run plots going on at any one time, and many staff do little and big animations from time to time, whether it's just room echoes for a group of travelers or suddenly making a safe area surrounded by dangerous things a little more dangerous or something else.

One recent plot I ran was large in scope and involved players from multiple clans. A plot I'm currently planning/running is a little smaller. I animate at least once every day I'm logged into staffland. I also play a mortal character. Why? Because I find all those things fun. I can't imagine why any staffer would want to relegate themselves to one thing they find fun.

[Malken]

I feel like it has a lot to do with the fact that both players and Staff alike are dividing their "hobby free time" in a lot more ways than they used to back in the 90's and early 2000's when gaming was certainly not what it was today.

Last week I actually thought to myself that it seems like the GDB is turning more and more into a general "gaming community" than a forum about Armageddon Mud (which is certainly not a bad thing for me who doesn't play the game anymore but still enjoy the "community" aspect of the game), but maybe I'm also alone in thinking that.

Maybe Staff have now little time left after having taken care of all the "administrative" side of the game like apps approval, taking care of their clans, answering reports, etc..

Maybe Dude in Charge of Making Things Happen in Game and nothing else isn't a bad idea (Oh, I just read what Desertman wrote and it sounds like we have the same idea).

PS: I'm certainly in no position to judge if stuff happens or not in game anymore, that was mostly a RANDOM ARMAGEDDON THOUGHT (rip never forget) om my part

[BadSkeelz]

I think part of the reason player-doings don't get on to the history page much anymore is because, in the last few events I can think of (going back 2+ years), someone inevitably flipped out OOCly and gets banned for breaking the rules. Hard to commemorate the IC happenings when players fuck up the OOC part.

[Desertman]

What a waste of time staffing would be if we didn't support what players wanted to accomplish, or at least describe the path it would take to get there so that they could take that path in-game. Considering that we do, indeed, exist for that purpose, it would be confusing why there are even staff at all if the above quote was at all true.

If you think this is true or not isn't the factor on the table.

The factor on the table is, "Do players experience the game in a way that they feel this is true, and if so, is that an issue that needs to be looked at?".

I am proposing that the game "feels" this way for a lot of players and as such an undesirable outcome is the product of the environment that is being ran in a way that such a feeling is created.

I understand you don't think it's true.

I'm saying that for some people it is.

Now, IF every player had your staff's-eye-view of the situation, such a feeling might not exist.

However, not every player is a staffer, and as such, we experience the game differently than you experience it. It is worth noting that the player experience is what matters and is the entire point of staffing the game to begin with...to create the player experience...not to say, "Well from my staffer point of view, I don't see this or feel this way.".

That isn't even under discussion. I absolutely believe from your staffing vantage point you have a different point of view.

Staff as a whole run plots and help players with their own plots and do little and big animations because it's a fun thing we like to do.

I think this is great. Nobody is saying you don't do things. We are just proposing possible additions.

[Armaddict]

stuff

Changed the quote to stuff just to make it smaller, not because any of it is bad.  Essentially, replying to Nergal to say:
1) I'm happy to have you call me out on my bullshit if I'm one of those 'some of you' you're addressing, but you can expect a defensive explanation on whatever case you bring up.

2) I hope you're not reading my posts as an 'f u staff' type of thing.  I was intending to explore the culture of players, and the culture of staff, and the effects of policies of now-and-the-past in regards to why people feel this way.  My endpoint is that I think we can all do better at these activities, but that I think players should also be more in the habit of attempting things between each other rather than against the static game world.  Choose plotting based in roleplay that promotes things between each other as players and player groups, because that's what the policy change was for.  Likewise, on the staff side, maybe realize that such was the point as well.  I, personally, have not been in a position recently where I -could- be told 'no, you can't do this', because those aren't the changes I'm trying to make.
  The camp idea is indeed overdone.  I'm sorry, but the majority of the game is designed to take place in the cities.  The desert is supposed to be unaccommodating, hostile, and isolating.  I'd much prefer more people focus on the city roleplay than expect that everyone should be able to just do what they want out in the wilds.  Again, I think this is a symptom of our mentality of uniting to change the game world rather than the old mentality of maintaining pecking orders; conflicts were very common when clans were competing to be dominant over each other in their hierarchies, but nowadays this is considered petty conflict because there isn't a special golden apple dangling at the end of the efforts.

I think the culture/mentality could do with adjustment from both staff and players.  Southern Staff Team could do with some willingness to pit their clans against each other in sponsored plots that receive realistic boons and detriments.  Southern Player Team could do with the willingness to accept that some clans are naturally antagonistic with each other.  Byn and Militia should have a healthy rivalry, each looking down on each other for their own ideals being prioritized, and this can spill over in real conflicts.  Noble houses should be playing their izdari games, and thus scrambling to acquire pawns to throw at each other, since they don't have their own forces anymore.  I'm not saying this is not happening as is, but it's not really as visible and pointed as it used to be, and more than that, I think the players involved sometimes don't think they're -actually- impacting anything, which can be remedied with some small impacts being noted in the game.

[Delirium]

Nergal,

I get that you're probably (you seem it, anyway) mad because you feel like we don't appreciate everything staff does.

That's not it.

I feel frustrated because there is an appearance of stagnation and overly-difficult hoops to jump through to accomplish relatively minor things.

I feel frustrated because when we do try to create plots, whether large or small, we're given contradictory, confusing, or just plain disinterested answers.

I feel frustrated when I watch staff resources being devoted to creating things for the game which players are told they cannot create through their own initiative.

Hostility and outright accusations of "bullshit" (I don't know whether that was directed at me or not, to be honest) aren't really going to help matters.

This is just how I feel through repeated interactions with staff and despite repeated attempts to be optimistic.

My suggestions are simple. Loosen the reins some. Remove some of the restrictions on enthusiastic storytellers. Plot out 3-4 "in city" and "desert" events per year that can be picked up by and run with by anyone. Resources, senate politics, whatever it is, the key to success I think is going to be allowing it to be open-ended, and not simply creating a story just so that staff can achieve a desired end (i.e., adjustment to a clan, area, or piece of documentation).

I do still have a LOT of fun playing the game!

My frustrations with hiccups in staff-player relations and appearances aside. I'm very capable of just playing the game for myself and interacting with players and not NEEDING staff. But I would like to contribute. I would like to do more.  So please keep in mind that if I say something, I say it because I care about the game.

[seidhr]

 

The thing is, I can think of two staff-initiated, open-ended plots that are running right now that do not have a predetermined end and are being pushed towards a conclusion by players.  Another two just finished.  One of them is a 'resource' that nearly any player can interject themselves into, and already involves at least 3 clans as well as independent players.

We're involved to the extent we need to be, but we're letting players drive it to whatever the conclusion may be.  That's what you guys wanted, right?

Is it that you can't see the forest for the trees, or the other way around?  I always get that messed up.

[Desertman]

It's the same old loop that has always existed then. (And the fact it keeps existing is pretty much the only thing that needs to be said about it.)

"We as a group of players feel a certain way.".

"Well, I know of a couple of things that exist, so you aren't allowed to feel that way and this isn't an issue worth even looking at.".

"Ok then, you are staff, I guess you are right, we don't feel this way I guess, we were just confused about our experience I guess.".

[BadSkeelz]

TBF that "Group of players feel[ing] a certain way" is also pretty much the same half-dozen people (myself included) over and over.

And for the record I am immensely proud and pleased with my contributions to the game: pockets and reduced stew sizes.

[Delirium]

That's great, I'm very encouraged to hear that there are open-ended plots running. Though I haven't seen it in my corner, I'm glad to know it's out there.

Maybe I'm just being greedy, though I feel the question does beg to be asked:

What about plots that are player-created and THEN staff-supported - beyond "sit back and watch what happens" or "here's a mastercraft"?

Something that required building, or adding something new, or adjusting the gameworld in some way?

[Armaddict]

Without quotes, it's hard to tell whether these staff replies are directed at me or not.

Again, I'm not saying that you guys aren't doing anything.  I'm saying that from each side of the experience, player side vs staff side, there's a lack of fusion between the two perspectives, one that I think is due to players depending -too much- on change that requires staff (i.e. Players vs static world rather than against moveable parts in the static world (each other)), and on staff viewing some of those things that players work for too difficult to actually have reach to fruition (i.e. approval board vs facilitator).  It's resulting in some people (perhaps even just the older players, who were exposed to the 'before'?) feeling like there's no logical place to go, or that feeling of meaninglessness that Desertman and Delirium are referring to (I don't have that feeling so much, because I make conflicts on my own to work on; my characters always have a 'cause' that never really ends but dictates their decisions and direction).

I'm in no way shape or form talking about staff just standing in the way of things or being interventionist.  I just think we've hit an extreme where people are just -expecting- stagnation and thus not really involving themselves in what opportunities are there.  Likewise, the static nature of the game is being pushed so hard that even things that are not-really-static are being treated as static, and things that have been earned and worked for are purposely undermined either because of disagreement in methodology or circumstance.

I didn't mean for my exploration of then vs now, and the staff-facilitated vs staff-driven, to turn into this, really, but it -is- kind of a healthy topic to get perspectives out there if we can listen well and not just hear.

[Delirium]

It's resulting in some people (perhaps even just the older players, who were exposed to the 'before'?) feeling like there's no logical place to go

Quite possibly!

There is a distinct difference in the "feel" of the game from back then, and what I observe now. I won't rule out that some of it is due to the passage of time and jaded perceptions, though I've tried to be as objective as possible. I'm not trying to be accusatory or inflammatory, either. I just want to see this game go back to feeling creative, open-ended, and full of possibilities. For a long time it has felt like a lot of the "open world possibility" is gone under the bootheel of "you can't". I miss the more tabletop, collaborative feel that I remember from ye olden days, when I felt like it was possible to make a real impact on the world without sacrificing 3 years, an unborn child, and unhealthy amounts of sleep.

It sounds from Sedhir's post that things are actually taking a push in that direction, and if so, great. Judging by my (apparently not alone) perception, we do still have a ways to go.

[Malken]

TBF that "Group of players feel[ing] a certain way" is also pretty much the same half-dozen people (myself included) over and over.

And for the record I am immensely proud and pleased with my contributions to the game: pockets and reduced stew sizes.

I am proud of all the unwanted pregnancies I have caused over my years as a player. It should definitely be in the Known History.

[seidhr]

Something that required building, or adding something new, or adjusting the gameworld in some way?

This can be construed as a variety of things and it's hard for me to comment without knowing specifically what you're asking about.  

As a general rule, we don't do 'building' plots (as in - rooms) because if we do them, people would end up wanting to do a lot (see: mastercrafts) of them and it'd quickly grow to be completely unmanageable.  Plus, you need 'stuff' to go into the new rooms - items, NPCs, and so on.  Plus, the game is already very big, and the vast majority of it sits empty and unused as it is.  We'd prefer to keep this sort of world expansion under our thumbs for all these reasons.  If you have an idea that you think the world is sorely lacking, you can always send it in.  We're willing to hear your ideas.

Now, if you're talking about adjusting the game world in other ways, beyond building "new stuff" then yes that's absolutely possible and has been done both historically and recently.  Camps have been moved, new trade deals brokered, powerful PCs and NPCs ended or maligned, and so on - all this year.  Perhaps you meant something else entirely?

[Nergal]

Nergal,

I get that you're probably (you seem it, anyway) mad because you feel like we don't appreciate everything staff does.

That's not it.

Not so much mad as simply exasperated by the constant chase of trying to keep players entertained vs. these "perceptions" that apparently need to be discussed regardless of whether they're true or not; by the couple of attempts at player and staff plotting that I personally witnessed be partly or fully compromised because of out-of-game discussions about the details of the plots; by player attitudes in general that seem to favor doing nothing and waiting for permission constantly when really, we want and need players (particularly leaders) to set things in motion and players (particularly minions) to follow along.

I feel frustrated because there is an appearance of stagnation and overly-difficult hoops to jump through to accomplish relatively minor things.

I feel frustrated because when we do try to create plots, whether large or small, we're given contradictory, confusing, or just plain disinterested answers.

I feel frustrated when I watch staff resources being devoted to creating things for the game which players are told they cannot create through their own initiative.

Yes I get frustrated by that too. I'm not sure what to tell you. Players in large part are way too hesitant because of this "feeling" that they'll be told no when if they asked, they'd be told yes, or "no, but...". If they just asked, then their "feelings" would change.

Hostility and outright accusations of "bullshit" (I don't know whether that was directed at me or not, to be honest) aren't really going to help matters.

I'm exasperated because my efforts to "help matters" over the years aren't working, so yes, now I'm being hostile towards the bullshit. If the point being discussed is that people feel a certain way, instead of the facts themselves, then what is the actual point of the discussion?

This is just how I feel through repeated interactions with staff and despite repeated attempts to be optimistic.

My suggestions are simple. Loosen the reins some. Remove some of the restrictions on enthusiastic storytellers. Plot out 3-4 "in city" and "desert" events per year that can be picked up by and run with by anyone. Resources, senate politics, whatever it is, the key to success I think is going to be allowing it to be open-ended, and not simply creating a story just so that staff can achieve a desired end (i.e., adjustment to a clan, area, or piece of documentation).

I do still have a LOT of fun playing the game!

My frustrations with hiccups in staff-player relations and appearances aside. I'm very capable of just playing the game for myself and interacting with players and not NEEDING staff. But I would like to contribute. I would like to do more.  So please keep in mind that if I say something, I say it because I care about the game.

The only restriction on storytellers is that they have a probation period to ensure they're learning the ropes. I give my STs all the freedom they need to run what they want plot-wise, within the bounds of the game. I give the players to do or add new things to/for their clans. I even weaken my own clans' positions (far fewer life oaths in GMHs) or add new clans (Dust Runners) so that there's more potential for conflict.

And apparently players still say they feel like they can do nothing. When either they know better or they haven't tried.

So yes, I'm exasperated and I'm not particularly afraid to be frank about it at this point. Every time this comes up, no one brings up realistic ideas that aren't already in place. (Note: many ideas here, including yours, are both realistic and already in-place). Regardless, staff-run plots are disregarded as being "above the playerbase" or "light-shows" or having a fixed conclusion. Then players ask why we're not interested in running plots. Oddly enough, sometimes players propose plots that are above the playerbase (in that they only involve a small group of PCs, usually OOC friends), light shows (in the form of gaining magick power that is no longer supported or doesn't exist or will result in storage for no longer being humanoid) or having a fixed conclusion (building plots with a 0% chance of failure or interruption) and we STILL try to make it work, somehow.

tl;dr: Players who know better are discourteous and dishonest about what they want, and say completely different things here, in requests, and in other mediums.

[ThisIsAnAlias]

I just had a couple of thoughts about this that I wanted to point out.

I see a lot of Desertman's sentiments and have felt a lot of those ways myself. I used to think that that's just what the game was--that either people who were liked by staff or were staff or it was a plot already being run by staff got stuff, and everyone else, no matter what they put in with any level of reasonable request, wouldn't get it. However, I don't think that now. From talking to a broader audience of people, and knowing a couple of people who have seen staff-side (and aren't embittered about it) I can say on the majority, that seems to actually not be the case. A lot of things just take a while, and because of yes, the volunteering, there aren't necessarily resources to respond to people like a "product" or something would. I think this frustrates the people building as much as it does the people who want stuff built.

One of the most harmful things that can happen is an "us vs them" mentality. When you see what you see, you have information and if you just dig in with that information, you will never see someone else's point of view, and it can never do anything but decline. The solution to this is transparency. I feel like a more productive question here might be "How can staff be more transparent?" if that's what you think you need. Or how can players be more accurate about saying what they want?

Again, I've definitely felt this way. I've even stored major characters because of it. I will also say that it seems to be from talking to vets that have played the games for a really long time, administration does a lot better now at having staff policies in place and stuff to keep nonsense from happening, but that doesn't mean staff will always be perfect, either. Anyone who insists that their operation is perfect is just delusional. But that applies to the players as much as the staff, it's just easier to apply to the staff because they are the "organization" so to speak.

I would also like to point out that having conversations like this in the open is really important, and I feel like this is part of how a game does in fact not stagnate. Stagnation is one of my fears as well. So I would encourage everyone to listen to each other, but it does need to somehow get past the "same circle" of communication. What other methods of communication might work? If you can't be productive in your conversation, there's no point in speaking. Yet I think the conversations do need to happen. I know some games do like monthly meetings with the players and stuff and do announcements and Q&A with their playerbase in real-time. Would that help? I don't know. I personally don't have many good ideas here in how communication might be done better to be productive.

[BadSkeelz]

Staff transparency's fine. There's always going to be player entitlement issues. Players can and do accomplish a lot, even those who complain about not being able to accomplish anything.

Edit: Because I'm afraid that's coming off dismissive, what I really think we just need to do is maintain a positive "half-full" attitude towards our play and our accomplishments. It's easy to get burnt out and jaded. We've all had things get shut down, plots squashed, PCs abruptly offed. But I wager we've all managed to pull something off that is undeniably Cool . It's not going to be on the same level as fighting a rebellion, or single-handily throwing down a Noble House, so it's unlikely to get on to Chronology page. Those were deeds of a different game, where things were a lot looser and, in a lot of ways, a lot worse. But if we look at what our characters have done, and compare to what most characters (PC and NPC) do, we've definitely done some thing some time.

I'd encourage people to get some logs of their Cool things and submit them. Chances are other players were there, also thought it was a Cool thing, and will show gratitude for you having the drive to get that Thing done.

[Armaddict]

Not so much mad as simply exasperated by the constant chase of trying to keep players entertained vs. these "perceptions" that apparently need to be discussed regardless of whether they're true or not;

We don't intend on exasperating you by bringing it up, I don't think.  If it makes you feel any better, one of my recurring feelings on the GDB is that we're constantly asking staff for a bunch of things and not really taking the burden to do things ourselves.  That's the gist of my post is that we, the players, can do a lot to improve the state of the game.

However, coming outright and saying 'these perceptions don't need to be discussed because they're not true' as above is kind of an attempt to shut down communication, not promote it.  The difference between what prompted the original post and what you're discussing as currently ongoing is exactly the point of the original post, but I think you're just dismissing it a little too readily instead of reflecting on why that perception could be possible.  WHY is this perception that is wrong still being held, and how can that be remedied?

I've been very careful to promote the idea that this is less about staff and more about the players, but that staff inclusion in combating the stagnant condition that some players seem to feel would be very helpful and welcome.  It's nothing to be taken as an attack or anything, I just think some of the old people miss some of those periods of absolute turmoil moments where the entire game is in a constant state of flux; where you could log in one night, and this would be the state of the game.  The next night, the state of the game was entirely different, because <this PC> did <this action>, which fucked up <this understanding>.  It was a state of the game where even staff, which were at this point over individual clans instead of teams, seemed to be in open competition with each other by the plots they were encouraging from their minions.

When I talk about the staff days of yore, it's less a critique, and more trying to bring back bits and pieces of the past to see if any of them are worth re-adopting.  We went from one extreme, where players felt like they didn't have much say but got to be involved in momentous huge shit, to the other, where it's more about player initiative with staff support but resulting in less visibly huge impact...and these degrees can always be tweaked and played with if we allow ourselves.

If you think I represent this differently between here and private communications, I'm sorry.  I try to be honest at all times, but a lot of opinions of mine are based off of what exactly is being discussed and in what light.  I.e. I can think very differently about staff involvement from one topic to the next.

Staff transparency's fine. There's always going to be player entitlement issues. Players can and do accomplish a lot, even those who complain about not being able to accomplish anything.

I think I accomplish plenty.  I have outright fist pumping victory moments over the smallest things...but they are small things that are hard earned where I have to feel the victory.  I think some are looking for that same thing, but on a much larger scale that is harder to actually reach.

[BadSkeelz]

I think I accomplish plenty.  I have outright fist pumping victory moments over the smallest things...but they are small things that are hard earned where I have to feel the victory.  I think some are looking for that same thing, but on a much larger scale that is harder to actually reach.

I think we're all just looking for validation of our play, honestly.

[WarriorPoet]

Damn. Ya'll got all serious. I just wanted to talk about Thrain.

[Delirium]

Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'm going to assume not all that was directed at me because if it is, y'all are working under some serious misconceptions. I can see this isn't going anywhere good, though. I'm just going to invite another round of aggressive 'how dare you have an opinion that is contrary to our unassailable truth'.

I'm done.

[BadSkeelz]

Damn. Ya'll got all serious. I just wanted to talk about Thrain.

whatchu know bout thrain?

Seriously, are there actually logs from back then? I think the oldest log I've ever seen was the Gith-Allanak war.

[Brokkr]

Remember that at one time, probably pre-RPI, Steinal was a coded place.  It can therefore be inferred that the PC timeline exists as far back as:

1055    The armies of Allanak and Steinal clash just west of the Great Salt Flats. Enraged, Tektolnes summons powerful magicks and puts down Valasurus, burying both him and the destroyed city of Steinal under the sands.

[Suhuy]

I even weaken my own clans' positions (far fewer life oaths in GMHs) or add new clans (Dust Runners) so that there's more potential for conflict.

And apparently players still say they feel like they can do nothing. When either they know better or they haven't tried.

I'd like to reply to this more from the stand point of "things aren't as wild and crazy as they once were back in the day" than from a perspective of player limitation or "nothing's possible anymore".

Life oaths and new clans will certainly add to the game, but they won't inspire passion. Characters need something to be passionate about, as they once were. All those stories in the history page are pivotal events by inspired, impassioned individuals. Merchants competing with one another isn't going to cut it. You seldom find real loyalties in the world of commerce anyway, so fighting for this merchant house or that merchant house is a watered down battle at best. And it's not more zombies or tarantulas or gith either. There's nothing to be passionate about fighting monsters. They're just a threat, not a reason for you to wave your house banner high and feel proud. The game desperately needs two active and reachable opponents, ideally one as a small oppressed group, the other as the almighty oppressors. A great injustice (or perceived injustice) has to occur in order for two opposing sides to really grow to despise one another. Players can initiate the spark, but staff are required for it to be felt on a clan-wide level, much less a game-wide one.

The options are plentiful. What happened to the ALA? What about Tuluk? Do the Tan Muark care enough about their descent to consider fomenting any sort of rebellion? And that's just naming a very few examples. We've seen a lot of impressive code changes lately. What I'd like to see are story changes. Pick one part of the game that has been a constant for a very long time, something seen as a fossil even dating back to the early 90s, and rip it apart -- then watch what grows and blossoms out of that destruction. Borsail could have easily filled that void, but current events have sort of blocked that opportunity now. So pick something else. Hell, pick an NPC house and send them into exile, using it as a catalyst for players to join.

Injustice. An oppressed group in hiding. A long, slow build up that allows generations of characters to get involved. I can't sell these points enough. It won't happen without players, it won't happen without staff.

[ThisIsAnAlias]

We don't intend on exasperating you by bringing it up, I don't think.  If it makes you feel any better, one of my recurring feelings on the GDB is that we're constantly asking staff for a bunch of things and not really taking the burden to do things ourselves.  That's the gist of my post is that we, the players, can do a lot to improve the state of the game.

It is when some, or many, people do it, and I think that's important to realize when talking to staff. I try to always be courteous and express anywhere I know I may have misunderstandings when speaking to them, and I've always had a very positive relationship with staff, even though I have also had disagreements with them, or done things wrong. It's no surprise they get a little miffed when they try for so long and don't get much positive feedback. Please also remember to send your staffers kudos, as this helps counteract this. It's much easier to remember negative things than positive.

I think we're all just looking for validation of our play, honestly.

I don't know that that is all. I think we are looking for something world-changing. Stagnation is being brought up I feel like because of what Suhuy has raised. I pretty much 100% agree with Suhuy. I think people would even be okay with the game being smaller if it meant more ability to have more dynamic play, maybe.

I'm done.

While I see and understand this, I do not think this is going to help anything. It is only when both parties look to accommodate one another that we can see progress, I think.

[BadSkeelz]

I dunno, Suhuy. I was never more passionate for the game when my PC's job consisted of running a tiny clan, reporting to smart superiors and killing bugs all day. You'll see passionate characters so long as the players are passionate, regardless of that PC's particular calling.

[Taven]

I'd like to reply to this more from the stand point of "things aren't as wild and crazy as they once were back in the day" than from a perspective of player limitation or "nothing's possible anymore".

Life oaths and new clans will certainly add to the game, but they won't inspire passion. Characters need something to be passionate about, as they once were. All those stories in the history page are pivotal events by inspired, impassioned individuals. Merchants competing with one another isn't going to cut it. You seldom find real loyalties in the world of commerce anyway, so fighting for this merchant house or that merchant house is a watered down battle at best.

I think you're very off-base here.

You will find PCs who spend their entire lives giving their loyalty to a Merchant House and expecting the same. Merchant Houses rarely fight direct wars with soldiers, but there's a LOT of murder, corruption, and betrayal going on there. There's also potential for conflict, as well. Don't believe me? Ask around for recent IC history.

And it's not more zombies or tarantulas or gith either. There's nothing to be passionate about fighting monsters. They're just a threat, not a reason for you to wave your house banner high and feel proud. The game desperately needs two active and reachable opponents, ideally one as a small oppressed group, the other as the almighty oppressors.

The problem with this is that it can't last indefinitely. I mean, let's take a look at Allanak. It's nearly a RL year ago that there was massive commoner unhappiness, including vNPCs. The commoners of Allanak are oppressed. So why is there no conflict? Because the templars and nobles have already won. Because people don't want to play a rebel against the state, they want to play loyalists. If there ARE threats, they're instantly quashed.

The next response could well be that any action against Allanak is impossible. But if you assume that, then yes. But the reason Allanak has no Trader's Inn is because a PC organized things to get it burnt to the ground. It's possible to do Terrible Things (TM), but it is a very long, hard, and difficult road.

A great injustice (or perceived injustice) has to occur in order for two opposing sides to really grow to despise one another. Players can initiate the spark, but staff are required for it to be felt on a clan-wide level, much less a game-wide one.

This is true. For the large, world-wide picture, staff are needed to make it happen. But it still starts at a player level. If you want the vNPC world to have a reaction to what you're doing, then efforts to impact vNPCs must be made. Or even asking staff what the impacts are.

The options are plentiful. What happened to the ALA? What about Tuluk? Do the Tan Muark care enough about their descent to consider fomenting any sort of rebellion? And that's just naming a very few examples. We've seen a lot of impressive code changes lately. What I'd like to see are story changes. Pick one part of the game that has been a constant for a very long time, something seen as a fossil even dating back to the early 90s, and rip it apart -- then watch what grows and blossoms out of that destruction. Borsail could have easily filled that void, but current events have sort of blocked that opportunity now. So pick something else. Hell, pick an NPC house and send them into exile, using it as a catalyst for players to join.

Options like opening the gith to be playable, to support a plot in an area traditionally overlooked: The Tablelands?

Things like nobles forced to take sides in a conflict that threatened to be civil war, risking making alliances with templars pitted against each other?

Things like fleshing out previously virtual parts of templarate administration?

Things like creating a new clan devoted to illegal activity?

Injustice. An oppressed group in hiding. A long, slow build up that allows generations of characters to get involved. I can't sell these points enough. It won't happen without players, it won't happen without staff.

I think it's the players that are needed.

Because I'll be honest. I've at times where I've been frustrated that I haven't had enough staff support. It's happened before, it will happen again.

But ultimately, all the cool shit I want to do? All the millions of ideas in my head screaming to be made reality?

They need players. They're not happening because the PCs that exist don't want them to, or the PCs that would need to exist to make them happen simply don't.

[Vositus]

...I think the conversations do need to happen. I know some games do like monthly meetings with the players and stuff and do announcements and Q&A with their playerbase in real-time. Would that help? I don't know. I personally don't have many good ideas here in how communication might be done better to be productive.

Once upon a time, there was an HRPT. Everyone was told if they wanted to participate, they had to log in and: >wish all I'd like to participate in the HRPT! Everyone was transported to an empty room, and everyone had their hoods up, (or not, if they didn't care. Just as long as you didn't identify yourself when you spoke) And then... they just talked. Everyone. Staff and Player alike, real time. I don't exactly recall what was discussed 'cause it was so long ago, but it probably doesn't matter.

My point is: This has happened before. I don't remember if it was received very well, but I don't think it's happened since. Then again, I've just recently returned after a long period of No Armageddon. There might be a reason, or it may have happened again without me knowing.

(I do remember being instructed NOT to type >look , because the amount of people logged in and standing in the same room would put a serious hurt on the servers or something.)

[Armaddict]

Those are the Player-Staff meetings of yore.  I believe they were phased out due to being clunky and not time-efficient, to get the same benefit as could be had from a discussion board.  *waves around*

[seidhr]

Yep I remember those.  We had a really clunky discussion board back then.  The meetings were better.  Kind of.  But having a real discussion board makes them kind of obsolete.

[Iiyola]

I think there's a lot going on in Arm/Zalanthas, but the problem is, is that it's not for all public to see. Things happen behind closed doors and sometimes (or rather most of the times) people don't talk about it because its super sekrit.

Perhaps if there were some bigger (staff driven) events coming up, or a more public presence of animations? I've seen a few of those lately but again, only in a fairly secluded area.

I'm thinking about the zombie invasion, the black robes, the ghyrrak, the politics behind them, etc.

It will push people to be assertive, create (interclan) interaction and stuff to talk about in the taverns.

Just my 2 cents.

[ThisIsAnAlias]

Design/Admin thoughts:

I think something that has also been kind of hinted at here, and I think I've said it elsewhere, but I've always thought that Armageddon actually has a lack of conflict.

This may sound crazy, but...for it to be as cut-throat as it is, everyone is surprisingly generous. For example, the war between Tuluk and Allanak has never been really played up since I started playing, which was about 6 years ago now. And as far as merchant houses, they all have their own areas where they can create things, and there's just this unbroken arrangement among them to not step on each others' stuff. I feel like some actual competition could be healthy. This would tie into the "nothing to get under a banner about" sort of idea above. This I think is an area where a player would really have a hard time, because it's "not part of the docs".

In addition, I feel like the key to keeping a world lively is regular, small revelations, whether that is a new beast, a new little area, or what. The areas could even come and go with one another. Open something up, have it be part of an event, and then it gets blocked off, or whatever. I think this is what keeps a mystery and "always unfolding" feel to a world. In my opinion, this is just like any other game. If you're not releasing new content, you can expect people to get antsy. The key for a MUD is to introduce this new content in a way that either fits within the existing world, or only temporarily expands it. For this reason, I really wish I'd been playing during all the Dragonthrall stuff, because all of that sounds really cool and I wish plots like that were still going on. When the world is alive, I feel like players are more likely to jump to causes and do things.

Psychological thoughts:

I think, as to my earlier point "negatives weigh heavier than positives" -- when a lot of stuff goes away, I think it has to be met with a larger [feeling] positive so people don't get fixated on the losses. I think a more roadmap-oriented approach to these sorts of changes might be helpful as well, instead I think they tend to surprise people. It's sort of like running a government, actually. It's all the same concepts as to how to rule a people without having them rebel against you. But that's just me objectifying people again.

Pragmatic thoughts:

If this is an actual issue, I think the desires of the population should sway more than anything else. Of course, all true democracies are doomed to end in tyranny when someone sweeps popular vote, so a republic is best. In this way, I believe a very good argument could actually be formed for a new position, but it wouldn't necessarily be a Staff position--it would be something akin to a Community Manager for larger games, except you would need an odd number of them, most likely. However, I do not believe that this argument, no matter how well crafted, would ever make it off the ground, so I won't bother myself to expound upon it unless there is some evidence to the contrary.

[Taven]

This may sound crazy, but...for it to be as cut-throat as it is, everyone is surprisingly generous. For example, the war between Tuluk and Allanak has never been really played up since I started playing, which was about 6 years ago now.

Actually, Tuluk and Allanak haven't been actively at war for an entire 6 RL years. They're always in a perpetual state of dislike, but active war was a more recent development.

Things developed over time. It started with the spies in Tyn Dashra, and the full conflict that ended with a volcano being dropped on the Muarki. Later on, Allanak decided to post a very high bounty on severed Tuluki hands. Finally, the Allanaki actions culminated in lighting fires in Tuluk. At this point, things became full-blown war.

There were war camps, war plots, war meetings. Ultimately, however, Tuluk was closed to play before anything actually substantial happened.

There is not currently a Tuluki-Allanaki war, because there is not currently a Tuluk. Yes, it exists there. It's just in a perpetual, unknown state of limbo. This is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

And as far as merchant houses, they all have their own areas where they can create things, and there's just this unbroken arrangement among them to not step on each others' stuff. I feel like some actual competition could be healthy. This would tie into the "nothing to get under a banner about" sort of idea above. This I think is an area where a player would really have a hard time, because it's "not part of the docs".

I think it would be neat to see more overlap and competition with what the Merchant Houses produced, which could lead to further conflict. However, from just a player perspective, most players go out of their way to avoid the areas where the Houses do overlap, making waves, or causing problems. This is because getting murdered is ultimately not very profitable.

The Merchant Houses do compete in terms of resources. Recent IC history is a testament to this.

However, I don't think these types of conflict are very complex. Why? Because players want to win. There's no gradation. It's 'if I can kill them first, I win'. If we really want to have more intense conflict, maybe taking a look at NOT insta-murdering would be worthwhile.

In addition, I feel like the key to keeping a world lively is regular, small revelations, whether that is a new beast, a new little area, or what. The areas could even come and go with one another. Open something up, have it be part of an event, and then it gets blocked off, or whatever. I think this is what keeps a mystery and "always unfolding" feel to a world. In my opinion, this is just like any other game. If you're not releasing new content, you can expect people to get antsy.

I think a lot of new content has been put in recently. I think staff does a good job at adding new creatures or areas when it's plot relevant. If you browse through the news, you'll probably see some of this.

Maybe it's not the style or type you're after, but it's happening.

The key for a MUD is to introduce this new content in a way that either fits within the existing world, or only temporarily expands it. For this reason, I really wish I'd been playing during all the Dragonthrall stuff, because all of that sounds really cool and I wish plots like that were still going on. When the world is alive, I feel like players are more likely to jump to causes and do things.

I was only around for a tiny bit of the Dragonthrall stuff, and it was when I was too new to really appreciate it. It did feel like a very active time for the game, with a lot going on. However, I know a lot of people were also dissatisfied with it. It lead to a LOT of magicker-heavy plots, to the point where there was The Great Karma Off where people willingly asked staff to drop their karma, and swore not to play magickers.

What's my point? My point is that nothing makes everyone happy.

[Jingo]

However, I don't think these types of conflict are very complex. Why? Because players want to win. There's no gradation. It's 'if I can kill them first, I win'. If we really want to have more intense conflict, maybe taking a look at NOT insta-murdering would be worthwhile.

*Cough* You really have to have trust in the other player to be willing to create interesting stories. That trust dies if you allow yourself to be vulnerable in the service of interaction/plot building/not-being-a-wanker and then someone on the other end fucks you over just so they can win.

I see this happen at a near constant rate in game these days. It's a wonder why there are still players out there willing to try.

I think a lot of new content has been put in recently. I think staff does a good job at adding new creatures or areas when it's plot relevant. If you browse through the news, you'll probably see some of this.

And scrubbing up areas that were problematic. I'm looking at you free water within walking distance of the city.

[ThisIsAnAlias]

What's my point? My point is that nothing makes everyone happy.

Don't have to make everyone happy, just the majority. The problem with threads like this, or with just threads like this as a communication tool, is that you cannot accurately gauge how the majority of the playerbase feels. I think the only thing that could do this would be some sort of survey that all players take. At that point, you need to have some representation of this majority that understands how to translate for the people actually creating the game. This could, in a small environment, be the same group of people for both things. If the majority of the playerbase feels this way, I would say that means you have likely several big issues. If it's just a handful, then you can cast them off as edge cases given the rule that, no, everyone will not be happy.

As far as Tuluk and Allanak not being at war for the past 6 years, I hadn't really thought of that, but that's true. I would then argue that they should have been. That was just another thing contributing to the world being too nice to carry large conflict. I do also think a virtual Tuluk being stuck in limbo is a huge conflict opportunity wasted. I would like to see more from virtual Tuluk, personally. I think this sort of thing just comes down to staffing issues, though. As in: not enough people to do "frivolous" things.

I was not against the closing of Tuluk. I think it was clear it was going to happen. I never thought Tuluk was very Armageddon theme-fitting, and I think the consolidation is a good design/administration decision. But the conflict still needs to carry from somewhere. If potential conflict-causers are closed and forgotten, that could be an issue.

[Suhuy]

If you played during the time of the Rebellion, you'll probably know what I'm getting at.

[Lizzie]

I've been involved in game-changing stuff within the last few years that resulted in changes to the game. I wasn't invited or hand-picked by staff to do it.  I basically tripped over my feet and landed right smack dab in the middle of "stuff that could be changed, that staff was already considering and now they have the perfect guinea pig to test it out on." That's just within the past few years; there are PCs in the game who are still alive to have either remembered the situation, or have heard of it, so it's not one of those "yeah but that was THEN, this is NOW" things.

I'll even go so far as to state I'm in the process of trying something that requires the staff involvement. They're aware of it. I don't know if I'll succeed or fail and frankly, I don't care one way or another. I want to try it, and it's part of the adventure of discovery that attracts me to the game. The ONLY part I really really want staff to be involved in, is making my attempts result in some kind of non-stock echo result. If I'm not able to succeed, I want something like "Nice try, Talia, but stinging yourself over and over with that plant just isn't making your boobs grow." In other words, I want to be told no in-character, and not via request tool. That's all I ask, and the staff has already said they would attempt to accommodate that for me.

If it succeeds, it WOULD be a game-changing event. You'd end up with a plant that, when you get stung with it, would make the stung parts of your body grow. Mdesc-changing, sdesc changing, possibly effecting your stamina, agility, strength...adding a new coded command (ep leaf;sting self), etc. Not much in the way of a clan-involving plotline, but absolutely game-changing.

I've ALSO been involved in world-changing plots within the past year or two, some of which still linger around and get poked at from time to time so I won't get specific here. Suffice it to say I occasionally get woven into them, from different perspectives. In fact I played one of the first crew of Dust Runners. There's a lot I can say about why our first crew wasn't very lucky but it has no place on the GDB. What I CAN say about it, is that the unfortunate results of the first crew was ENTIRELY player-created. We had staff support, and it was awesome staff support, incredibly helpful both IC and OOC. We did what we needed to do to get things rolling and were stopped every step of the way by other players - and sometimes by our own foibles.

When I see all this hyperbole about how "oh, we were so loved, we were so nourished, we were cherished snowflakes and now - now we are but a drop of water in a vast pond of emptiness" I want to just roll my eyes. That vast pond of emptiness was created primarily by the players who insisted on crying into the soup instead of stepping away from the kitchen to get things done. There's some ridiculous metaphoric hyperbole for you. From a different perspective.

[Desertman]

Nergal,

I get that you're probably (you seem it, anyway) mad because you feel like we don't appreciate everything staff does.

That's not it.

Not so much mad as simply exasperated by the constant chase of trying to keep players entertained vs. these "perceptions" that apparently need to be discussed regardless of whether they're true or not; by the couple of attempts at player and staff plotting that I personally witnessed be partly or fully compromised because of out-of-game discussions about the details of the plots; by player attitudes in general that seem to favor doing nothing and waiting for permission constantly when really, we want and need players (particularly leaders) to set things in motion and players (particularly minions) to follow along.

I feel frustrated because there is an appearance of stagnation and overly-difficult hoops to jump through to accomplish relatively minor things.

I feel frustrated because when we do try to create plots, whether large or small, we're given contradictory, confusing, or just plain disinterested answers.

I feel frustrated when I watch staff resources being devoted to creating things for the game which players are told they cannot create through their own initiative.

Yes I get frustrated by that too. I'm not sure what to tell you. Players in large part are way too hesitant because of this "feeling" that they'll be told no when if they asked, they'd be told yes, or "no, but...". If they just asked, then their "feelings" would change.

Hostility and outright accusations of "bullshit" (I don't know whether that was directed at me or not, to be honest) aren't really going to help matters.

I'm exasperated because my efforts to "help matters" over the years aren't working, so yes, now I'm being hostile towards the bullshit. If the point being discussed is that people feel a certain way, instead of the facts themselves, then what is the actual point of the discussion?

This is just how I feel through repeated interactions with staff and despite repeated attempts to be optimistic.

My suggestions are simple. Loosen the reins some. Remove some of the restrictions on enthusiastic storytellers. Plot out 3-4 "in city" and "desert" events per year that can be picked up by and run with by anyone. Resources, senate politics, whatever it is, the key to success I think is going to be allowing it to be open-ended, and not simply creating a story just so that staff can achieve a desired end (i.e., adjustment to a clan, area, or piece of documentation).

I do still have a LOT of fun playing the game!

My frustrations with hiccups in staff-player relations and appearances aside. I'm very capable of just playing the game for myself and interacting with players and not NEEDING staff. But I would like to contribute. I would like to do more.  So please keep in mind that if I say something, I say it because I care about the game.

The only restriction on storytellers is that they have a probation period to ensure they're learning the ropes. I give my STs all the freedom they need to run what they want plot-wise, within the bounds of the game. I give the players to do or add new things to/for their clans. I even weaken my own clans' positions (far fewer life oaths in GMHs) or add new clans (Dust Runners) so that there's more potential for conflict.

And apparently players still say they feel like they can do nothing. When either they know better or they haven't tried.

So yes, I'm exasperated and I'm not particularly afraid to be frank about it at this point. Every time this comes up, no one brings up realistic ideas that aren't already in place. (Note: many ideas here, including yours, are both realistic and already in-place). Regardless, staff-run plots are disregarded as being "above the playerbase" or "light-shows" or having a fixed conclusion. Then players ask why we're not interested in running plots. Oddly enough, sometimes players propose plots that are above the playerbase (in that they only involve a small group of PCs, usually OOC friends), light shows (in the form of gaining magick power that is no longer supported or doesn't exist or will result in storage for no longer being humanoid) or having a fixed conclusion (building plots with a 0% chance of failure or interruption) and we STILL try to make it work, somehow.

tl;dr: Players who know better are discourteous and dishonest about what they want, and say completely different things here, in requests, and in other mediums.

Having your work critiqued, especially by those it is supposed to directly benefit, can be frustrating.

However, when you put that work out to the public, all of the feedback you get is not going to be, "You are perfect and everything you have done is perfect and everyone feels things are just perfect because of you.".

Trust me, I know, having the things you have created critiqued by people from the outside can absolutely suck, especially when it isn't a shining critique.

I'm sorry you are upset, but you might consider looking at it from an entirely different point of view.

If what you created/worked on/helped over the years wasn't already awesome, the players in question wouldn't stick around for years taking part in it. Furthermore, they wouldn't even take the time to try and put out a critique or express the frustrations they do have to try and improve the system.

If your system was bad, they wouldn't give enough of a shit about your system to even offer you semi-negative feedback. They wouldn't offer you any feedback. They wouldn't stick around.

Basically, when you put out an idea to the public, you need to be ready to receive some negative feedback because that's what the public does. However, these are people who openly admit they have a great time with the system, have done so for years, and plan to continue to do so for years.

It isn't that they think your system is bad, it's that they think it is great enough to use FOR YEARS, they just have some concerns and ideas that they feel might make it better.

Getting upset like this isn't going to do anyone any favors, most especially yourself.

Instead of calling "bullshit" and championing that cause, you might step back and say, "Well, I see some people feel this way. We'll have a look at it and see if there are things we can do to perhaps help this situation. We feel we are doing pretty good as it is, but, we have heard you.".

You know what your response would be then? "Thanks man, we appreciate that.".

If the only thing it accomplishes in reality is not frustrating your playerbase further, you have done a great thing. Attacking your playerbase, even in the peripheral, is the opposite of that.

[boog]

You can't please everyone though, D-man. And it's always the same people who seem to have something "to say," when it comes down to something they don't like or have opinions on improving.

Sure, there should always be striving for improvements, but, as someone who formerly was the ONLY staffer running events, animations, plots, or otherwise, for a whole game of about 40 people per night (sounds small, but when you have to hand hold half of them, it's not), you just can't please everyone. There will always be someone who thinks they know better. But that doesn't mean you have to voice it in such a manner as to degrade.

But then, maybe I also read most posts on every internet forum of all time with having a tone of vitriol to them, simply because I'm jaded. Who knows. :p

And, also, haven't staff said to put suggestions elsewhere? On the GDB they just get lost. You might have the Holy Grail of suggestions, but if it's not recorded in an official manner, it's just going to be lost to time.

[Nergal]

Desertman: I have no problem taking honest criticism, but the problem is when players like you presumably know what you've accomplished with your own characters over the years and yet continue to say the same thing they've been saying for years. Why should we pretend that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your feelings and staff's facts when it doesn't? If players still find the game isn't changing and no player-started plots are starting, after years of staff visibly working to make changes and being on-hand to support plots, then where is the problem, really? I see more players stopping player-started plots than staff do - either stopping their own plots for fear they will be rejected by staff or stopping other players' plots by refusing to support them or by killing them.

So that's what I'm saying. Give us actual criticism based on your honest experience, not the same thing people have been parroting for years despite everything those people's characters have done just to stir up a discussion. Consider that staff know you, and others posting here, have had characters accomplish quite a lot through player-started, staff-assisted plots. The discussion is worthless if it's not based on your honest experience, and is instead based on some vague feeling that should not even be justifiable considering your characters' experiences.

[Desertman]

Desertman: I have no problem taking honest criticism, but the problem is when players like you presumably know what you've accomplished with your own characters over the years and yet continue to say the same thing they've been saying for years. Why should we pretend that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your feelings and staff's facts when it doesn't? If players still find the game isn't changing and no player-started plots are starting, after years of staff visibly working to make changes and being on-hand to support plots, then where is the problem, really? I see more players stopping player-started plots than staff do - either stopping their own plots for fear they will be rejected by staff or stopping other players' plots by refusing to support them or by killing them.

So that's what I'm saying. Give us actual criticism based on your honest experience, not the same thing people have been parroting for years despite everything those people's characters have done just to stir up a discussion. Consider that staff know you, and others posting here, have had characters accomplish quite a lot through player-started, staff-assisted plots. The discussion is worthless if it's not based on your honest experience, and is instead based on some vague feeling that should not even be justifiable considering your characters' experiences.

This is a great reply.

You feel that players are accomplishing a lot more than the players feel they are accomplishing and so that is what is frustrating you.

While I find it somewhat flattering that you feel my characters have accomplished a lot more than I obviously do, I think it brings to light what might be the core issue.

It seems that maybe what you/the staff feel are meaningful accomplishments that players have access to might not be the same things that players feel are possible meaningful accomplishments?

I think what a lot of people want is more options to CREATE, instead of just play with someone else's creations.

Since you used me as an example of someone who has fulfilled what you believe to be meaningful accomplishments I will follow suit.

I can think of only one thing in the game world I have created that arguably went on to exist after my character's death. That one thing met such extreme opposition trying to shut it down (or at least multiple PC's involved felt that way regularly) through multiple staff animations across multiple staff-led/ran/supported groups that by the time the end came I had come to the conclusion that it would be a long time before I tried to build anything again.

It met so much staff opposition through animations, usually on the untouchable NPC level, that multiple PC's at multiple times made IC but OOC'ly fueled jokes about it and those jokes became a common theme.

If that is the amount of effort it takes to accomplish even something so minimal as what I have accomplished that arguably changed nothing in any way and would not in reality survive my PC....we might look at that.

Trust me, I'm not saying I don't feel like I have avenues to really accomplish anything because it makes me feel good. I'm saying it because that's how I feel, and this is coming from a player that we both agree, obviously, has tried to accomplish some things. We just have different opinions on what level those accomplishments reached and what happened along the paths to get there.

[Jherlen]

Why should we pretend that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your feelings and staff's facts when it doesn't? If players still find the game isn't changing and no player-started plots are starting, after years of staff visibly working to make changes and being on-hand to support plots, then where is the problem, really?
<snip>
The discussion is worthless if it's not based on your honest experience, and is instead based on some vague feeling that should not even be justifiable considering your characters' experiences.

Nergal, I understand your perspective well, but I do think you need to understand this is a perception issue that can't be fixed by saying "our facts show your feelings are wrong." There are a lot of veteran players who are speaking up in this thread, and I can't believe all of them are doing it because they want to win Troll Points on the GDB while fully well knowing that they're lying about what they can accomplish.

I would be interested to know why people feel how they do. What things would they like to accomplish but can't? What things have they accomplished or seen other pcs accomplish that are no longer possible due to current policy, and is that good or bad for the game? I think those questions are how we could all get something constructive out of this discussion.

Maybe it's because I'm relatively newly returned and still in a honeymoon phase with Armageddon and the GDB right now, but I feel like a lot of the people posting have in fact been honest and sincere. If they feel a different way than their player history might suggest, there may be reasons why that are worth examining, not dismissing.

[Nergal]

Then they should explain, using facts, why they feel the way they do, instead of merely using the sound bites that players have been using for years to describe player-staff relations regardless of the actual state of player-staff relations.
Edit to add: Even if that means discussing it via request tool as one player has already done, in case you feel it's not fit for the GDB. Although a GDB post would be fine if you can manage it.

[Desertman]

Then they should explain, using facts, why they feel the way they do, instead of merely using the sound bites that players have been using for years to describe player-staff relations regardless of the actual state of player-staff relations.
Edit to add: Even if that means discussing it via request tool as one player has already done, in case you feel it's not fit for the GDB. Although a GDB post would be fine if you can manage it.

That's fair and reasonable. Thank you.

I will wait until the "One Year Rule" burns its self out and any applicable PC's it might affect to my knowledge are long gone so as not to ruin any possible IC "things" for them.

It will require me to comb through a few hundred requests/replies submitted over the course of RL years for a PC, so, it's a good thing I have a bit more time before then.  

[valeria]

There is a psychological phenomenon where human brains emphasize negative events and remember them more strongly than positive events. People may keep bringing up "that one thing that frustrated them literal years ago" over "that positive thing recently" because they remember the negative thing more strongly and still have a more visceral reaction to it.

For instance, despite knowing how much staff support I got on my last leader, I'm still miffed about That One Thing, that majorly disappointing thing about her that stifled the story I wanted to tell and certainly at least contributed to my ultimate storage decision (not caused, but when I looked at reasons for trying to stick it out through a tough RL time, the corner I felt that my character had been backed into factored in heavily to my decision to want to start fresh). While I got MOST of what I wanted with that character, and TONS of staff support, the thing that was denied to me for seemingly very little reason given is the thing I remember the strongest. Not the cool history shit I was involved with and altered (oh yes! I definitely was able to impact some events).

And I'm not even the jaded old veteran archetype ( ). I communicate, I keep trying to do things I want done, and I keep seeing results. I'm generally positively disposed toward staff.

The main thing staff could have done better with me? Clear communication from the start and then giving me an actual reason for the "no" when it was clear there was a misunderstanding. I'm not sure things would have shaken out differently, but I would've been a lot less frustrated and depressed.

I realize that's not always an option, though. "Some other player stands in your way" isn't something that can/should be said.  I've witnessed more than once someone complaining through an OOC channel about "staff" being against them when I knew that I as another player had actually been the cause of their woes.

But in a thread like this, I think most people are more likely to complain than praise. And I'm sure there was just as much frustration and bitterness in the nostalgia days of yore.

So yes, Nergal, you'll probably have to say "look at all these cool things." Sorry, man. But every time you remind people about cool things it actually does make some of us go "you know... that's right." So I'm not sure I'd call it time wasted, even if it is rather repetitive.

I personally think the game continues to move in a positive direction, with more emphasis on open and honest communication on both sides and various "grievances" aired and discussed instead of festering in dark FB messenger echo chambers or whatever it is the kids do these days.

[Armaddict]

This turned into way more of an appeal of players blaming staff and staff blaming players for me to contribute to anymore.

Any side that thinks that people feel this way purely because of staff, or purely because of players, is pushing their head in the sand.

[seidhr]

I'd like to see things being done in public more.  While I totally get that there is a need for some meetings to be held in clan compounds, apartments, or other private rooms - if a leader PC is just going to give some casual instructions to their minions and whatever, that could easily be done in a tavern somewhere.

As a staffer we can see where everyone is with one command.  A lot of times it's just little micro clusters of two or three people in an apartment, clan compound/crafting area, etc.

Leaders visible in public = more stuff going on, in general.  Players do focus on "winning" too much and it will not be the end of the world if Amos from Oash overhears Fluffy Fale hiring the Byn to capture live scrabs for an exhibition for the next Scrab Festival.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd like to see things being done in public more.  While I totally get that there is a need for some meetings to be held in clan compounds, apartments, or other private rooms - if a leader PC is just going to give some casual instructions to their minions and whatever, that could easily be done in a tavern somewhere.

As a staffer we can see where everyone is with one command.  A lot of times it's just little micro clusters of two or three people in an apartment, clan compound/crafting area, etc.

Leaders visible in public = more stuff going on, in general.  Players do focus on "winning" too much and it will not be the end of the world if Amos from Oash overhears Fluffy Fale hiring the Byn to capture live scrabs for an exhibition for the next Scrab Festival.

I've posted thoughts on why some things don't get done in public more often before:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49826.0.html

[Patuk]

I'd like to see things being done in public more.  While I totally get that there is a need for some meetings to be held in clan compounds, apartments, or other private rooms - if a leader PC is just going to give some casual instructions to their minions and whatever, that could easily be done in a tavern somewhere.

As a staffer we can see where everyone is with one command.  A lot of times it's just little micro clusters of two or three people in an apartment, clan compound/crafting area, etc.

Leaders visible in public = more stuff going on, in general.  Players do focus on "winning" too much and it will not be the end of the world if Amos from Oash overhears Fluffy Fale hiring the Byn to capture live scrabs for an exhibition for the next Scrab Festival.

But Seidhrrrr tavern RP is so boring besides if people are gud they know where to find people anyway

[Taven]

If you played during the time of the Rebellion, you'll probably know what I'm getting at.

I don't think giving a one-line reply which is basically "if you played the game 10+ years ago like me, you know" is in the spirit of discussion. It shuts down anyone who hasn't been here a decade.

Instead, I would challenge you to actually respond to my points.

[Taven]

What's my point? My point is that nothing makes everyone happy.

Don't have to make everyone happy, just the majority. The problem with threads like this, or with just threads like this as a communication tool, is that you cannot accurately gauge how the majority of the playerbase feels. I think the only thing that could do this would be some sort of survey that all players take. At that point, you need to have some representation of this majority that understands how to translate for the people actually creating the game. This could, in a small environment, be the same group of people for both things. If the majority of the playerbase feels this way, I would say that means you have likely several big issues. If it's just a handful, then you can cast them off as edge cases given the rule that, no, everyone will not be happy.

I think the problem is that the portion of the playerbase that is unhappy (however small or large they may be) can't agree on how to actually fix anything so that they're happy.

That's my take, anyways.

[Lizzie]

What's my point? My point is that nothing makes everyone happy.

Don't have to make everyone happy, just the majority. The problem with threads like this, or with just threads like this as a communication tool, is that you cannot accurately gauge how the majority of the playerbase feels. I think the only thing that could do this would be some sort of survey that all players take. At that point, you need to have some representation of this majority that understands how to translate for the people actually creating the game. This could, in a small environment, be the same group of people for both things. If the majority of the playerbase feels this way, I would say that means you have likely several big issues. If it's just a handful, then you can cast them off as edge cases given the rule that, no, everyone will not be happy.

I think the problem is that the portion of the playerbase that is unhappy (however small or large they may be) can't agree on how to actually fix anything so that they're happy.

That's my take, anyways.

Worse: if they do manage to fix it so they're happy, they run the risk of making everyone who was already happy, unhappy as a result of the fixes. And then you'd be right back where you started, and you'd end up where you always end, with that tired old cliche: You can't make everyone happy.

[wizturbo]

In the last 2 years, I've received support from staff to do a significant amount of pretty big, history altering stuff.  Much, much more than all of my other years in Armageddon combined and I've been around since 2004.

I don't put in a ridiculous amount of play hours compared to some people.  I have no 'friends' on staff, and I haven't met someone whose played Armageddon in real life ever.  I'm not some kind of model citizen who puts in a character report every single week or anything either.  I've been whiny and petulant about changes related to magick in Armageddon.   I highly doubt my experiences are the result of staff favoritism, which leads me to conclude that my results are likely repeatable by just about anyone.  So some of the complaints I'm reading on this thread strike me as focused on something other than the actual ability to do big things in-game.  I get the sense they're mostly complaints about "Why won't staff do this thing I really think is a great idea?"

I think the important thing to remember when proposing a plot is it has to be a match, where both you and your staffer are interested in working on it.  Staff aren't servants, they don't do whatever it is we want them to do.  They run plots because they have fun doing it or they don't run them.   Or what's actually the worst case scenario, they'll run them to appease you, and since they don't really like the idea they won't do as good a job on it as you'd like and you'll be disappointed rather than excited about it, wasting everyone's time.  The only sensible way to go about things is to toss out ideas until one resonates with your staffer and they run with it.  I find keeping ideas open-ended, leaving them with plenty of creative freedom on how to move forward works the best.   If they aren't digging an idea, I generally don't get too beat up about it.  I just move on to the next thing, and try something else.  Sometimes you're just not going to match up on what sounds cool, and that's okay.



So having said all that, there is one suggestion I'd like to throw out there because not everyone responds to "No" the same way I do.

Some people fixate on one idea, fall in love with it, and when staff reject this idea they have the potential to be heartbroken.  It would mean the world to this player, and in many cases, might take only a very small amount of staff support to make it happen.  Some room description edits, maybe an item or two, and it might be enough to make a player go from heartbroken and ready to quit, to invigorated and ready to lead the next great plot line that everyone will be talking about years from now.

Obviously too many of these types of requests could get out of control, but that's not a very difficult problem to solve.   For example, what if you could spend one of your special application requests to ask for a room alteration, assuming you go through the IC steps required to do that?   How bad would that be to support?  Instead of having admins spend time reading someone's special application for a half-giant with a magick ding-dong, they can tweak a few sentences in a wilderness room, drop a few room items, and give that player who desperately wants a camp site for their little tribe a home?   Guidelines can be written on what kind of things are okay to request, and what things aren't, and players would suddenly have a new avenue to get at least some of their pet projects that they love (but their staff find to be pretty meh) a way of getting off the ground.  

[wizturbo]

If someone wants to create a camp out in the desert and they have four or five PC's with them and they all put together a big sack of money, gather a few hundred planks/logs/poles/insert building materials, and get some crafters to help them build said camp...and then spend the IC time roleplaying building it...they should have a camp.

As it sits the only way that camp will exist is if the project in question fits a plotline most likely created by staff for the players, or if a staffer decides they personally like the idea being presented.

If one of those isn't the case, you could put together triple the money, people, and resources needed for it to exist on an IC level, and OOC'ly it will never be allowed to exist.

This is a good example of what my suggestion above is trying to address.  Even if staff think your idea is boring, if you're willing to burn some of the time allotted to you from staff to consider special application requests to do something like this, I don't see why staff time couldn't be reallocated to this instead.

What I do not support is that anyone can do this any time they want.  Staff have a limited amount of time to do stuff.  If they're building your camp, they aren't building whatever thing they're passionate about with their free time.  They're already obligated to read character reports, approve applications, and a bunch of other necessary but not particularly exciting admin work.  Adding more work onto their plate they aren't passionate about doing isn't a good thing. 

[Desertman]

If someone wants to create a camp out in the desert and they have four or five PC's with them and they all put together a big sack of money, gather a few hundred planks/logs/poles/insert building materials, and get some crafters to help them build said camp...and then spend the IC time roleplaying building it...they should have a camp.

As it sits the only way that camp will exist is if the project in question fits a plotline most likely created by staff for the players, or if a staffer decides they personally like the idea being presented.

If one of those isn't the case, you could put together triple the money, people, and resources needed for it to exist on an IC level, and OOC'ly it will never be allowed to exist.

This is a good example of what my suggestion above is trying to address.  Even if staff think your idea is boring, if you're willing to burn some of the time allotted to you from staff to consider special application requests to do something like this, I don't see why staff time couldn't be reallocated to this instead.

What I do not support is that anyone can do this any time they want.  Staff have a limited amount of time to do stuff.  If they're building your camp, they aren't building whatever thing they're passionate about with their free time.  They're already obligated to read character reports, approve applications, and a bunch of other necessary but not particularly exciting admin work.  Adding more work onto their plate they aren't passionate about doing isn't a good thing.  

Which is why I recommended adding a staff role outlined above that would be filled by people passionate about doing exactly this sort of thing.

Basically, I absolutely agree with you, I just don't think it's a problem that can't be fixed.

The Minor Merchant House system, for all of its many flaws in its current incarnation, is a fantastic idea in theory. In my opinion it's one of the most interesting and truly sandbox elements ever put into the game to give the players what they want. Freedom.

That system needs to be tweaked at both the IC level and at the OOC Staff Guidelines level (here especially), for several reasons, but the theory and basic fundamental structure behind the MMH system could be altered to do so much more.

I would love to see it branched out and altered to several other things players want to do that are similar but don't necessarily result in brand new staffed merchant Houses.

[TheWanderer]

Honestly, I think the MMH system is fine. It's sufficiently difficult to rise to the levels of the Atrium, as it should be. When I threw my hat in the ring, the issue was simply finding the players to get started. On the other hand, I think I killed the best one for the job.

Regardless, I'd like to hear what you consider the flaws.

[Desertman]

Honestly, I think the MMH system is fine. It's sufficiently difficult to rise to the levels of the Atrium, as it should be. When I threw my hat in the ring, the issue was simply finding the players to get started. On the other hand, I think I killed the best one for the job.

Regardless, I'd like to hear what you consider the flaws.

There are many issues and I will certainly outline several of them at some point.

In terms of difficulty, I agree, the system as it sits and as it is outlined is actually very adequately structured in terms of difficulty. It is surprisingly well done in this regard. The amount of money and time outlined for fees etc is very well done. If nothing else, this one thing alone is the thing that doesn't need to be touched.

One glaring issue to consider is that Shopkeeper Status, is for better or worse, not really any better than basic Warehouse Holder status but costs quite a bit more. It comes with a tiny little bit of prestige that quickly loses its luster when you realize at a mechanical level you have gained basically nothing and it has cost you a lot more.

In order to actually utilize your ability to own a Shop you have to be a mastercrafter. If you aren't a mastercrafter, you don't get to own a shop. It is highly recommended by myself that we open up the ability to put items on your Shop NPC that aren't your own mastercrafts. The list would be approved by staff and would be 8 - 10 items that both staff and the player involved agree fit the theme of the group. Raw materials, for example, or basic crafting recipes that aren't mastercrafts could be a possibility.

Moving on from that.

Even if you ARE a mastercrafter, the items you put on your NPC shop attendant will not be specific to your "group" at a coded level because you aren't codedly a group. Every single mastercraft you potentially put on that Shopkeeper WILL be craftable by every other PC in the Known World with a crafting skill that fits the bill.

It makes the idea of putting your mastercrafts on an NPC very unappealing. The fundamental difference sits directly in your ability to dictate your distribution agreements on your goods and track how they are distributed, to who, and when. I can tell you from experience this is a very important thing.

If you sell on your NPC shopkeeper, every crafter in the game can get their hands on your crafts with immunity and then recreate them to resell them around the world.

If you sell to a PC directly you can let them know, "This is "Insert Group's" design, you are not allowed to recreate this without someone coming after you. Before I sell this to you, I need you to agree to these terms.".

Some people might still do it. Most won't. Eventually your designs will get out but YOU will know who you have sold to and you can more readily track down at that point who is recreating your goods and act accordingly.

Basically, you are better off not owning a shop as a shopkeeper in the current incarnation of the system in just about every way, so owning said shop is pretty pointless.

Being a Shopkeeper for now in reality means your BEST outcome is getting an NPC guard who will not actually defend you or attack on your behalf in any way because you aren't a coded clan. The NPC guards can't be coded to be "on your side". It's the same reason crafts can't be coded to be made by your group specifically.

Shopkeeper in reality is just sort of the "long wait" with very little actual payoff between Warehouse Holder and Trade Company.

My recommendation in this regard would be to grant BASIC clan status to Shopkeeper level groups.

They would have one coded leader and one coded leader only.
That coded leader would have the ability to Recruit and Dump PC's only, and there would be only one coded rank below "Leader". They wouldn't get clan bank accounts, they wouldn't get any other clan perks. The only reason they are even coded as a clan is for the below.

This would allow your NPCs to actually do something/be worth something more often. They can be coded to "be on your side", instead of just act as decoration. (They would not be allowed to follow you around/carry things/act as a mobile guard etc. Their commands would be very limited.)

Most importantly this would allow you to designate your mastercrafts to your group to make the idea of actually using an NPC shopkeeper for your group much more appealing. You could put your mastercrafts on your NPC vendor and they would serve as more than just a list of recipes you are giving out to the playerbase out of the kindness of your heart, which is what it is now.

(To any staff who worked on this, I'm not bashing your system. For coming up with something that never had anyone actually USE it and at such a complex level this system is amazingly well done. It is by far one of the most interesting and fun things in the game in my opinion. You did great. However, since it has got some test-time, I think some negative feedback where applicable will be constructive and might be useful.)

[seidhr]

That's all well and good, but maybe a new thread would be more appropriate because this one isn't really about that.

[Desertman]

That's all well and good, but maybe a new thread would be more appropriate because this one isn't really about that.

Confirmed. Moved to here: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51179.0.html

[seidhr]

Gracias!

[Withered Ocotillo]

As far as I know the first player-influenced timeline entry was the one referred to by the OP.

Thrain Ironsword's siege happened around 1992 and to my knowledge the game opened around 1991. It's possible there was beta testing of the game before that which had an influence on the timeline, but I believe Nessalin is the only active Armageddon player/imm that could tell us if that was the case.