Known History and Player Involvement

[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?