Known History and Player Involvement

[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.