Armageddon General Discussion Board

To preface:

Quote from: Barzalene on September 14, 2010, 07:14:27 PM
I was thinking about the change from the imm steered plots to the player steered plots. And I was wondering if it is working out. (I dunno. I am enjoying my little piece of the world. But it's always exciting to have lived in the time when...)

I played most actively a few years ago. And in my opinion there was a huge problem then with the heavy hand from above. There were times when I felt (perhaps mistakenly) that some imms thought we were all just Barbie Dolls in their Dream House. I hated that. I hated that they weren't facilitating the game, but rather putting on a puppet show. (That's a statement of opinion not fact.)

Looking from that to this, I think this is better.

But we've sacrificed a lot to get here.

Quote from: Adhira on September 14, 2010, 09:00:37 PM
Staffing is not static and we know that we don't have a perfect model.  As such we are always open to staff discussions about changes to the way things are done etc.  If you're asking if we're looking to make any changes right now, no we are not.

Quote from: Barzalene on September 15, 2010, 10:03:57 AM
And perhaps I'm wrong to think so, but it makes it feel that at least to some extent that makes this process a collaboration of sorts.Hence my poorly received suggestion that player staff dialogue might be mutually beneficial.

And for reference, the policy being mentioned:

Quote from: Adhira on February 03, 2009, 01:11:01 AM
Staff instead will be concentrating on facilitating the stories that players are creating. The overall goal is that gameplay happens at a level that is accessible to players, allowing them to feel a very real part of the action.

Another goal with the change is to move the focus of Storytellers from the administrative side of running clans, to the story oriented side. With a Highlord in charge of each group we hope that much of the admin work can be relieved and with dedicated HL's for each group decisions can get sign off at the team level.

The overall aim of this is to see STs out there animating every day, because they –want- to, to see plots and stories that reflect what players are interested in and want to achieve and staff supporting what you all are doing.

<snip>

While we want to focus our attentions on making the game more player driven as staff we still need to share a vision for the game. There will always be a need for oversight and direction at the macro level, what we want to make sure is that most of the action plays out at the micro level, where the players are, rather than up high where you are more observer than participant.

Barz, you want dialogue, so let's talk. Like Adhira said, the policy is not going to be changed (and as both a staffer and a player, I personally do not want it changed), however we're still just 1.5 years into it, the playerbase has 15 years of experience with the old way of doing things, and I believe we're still all adjusting.

So I'd like to talk about how can we adjust. What things are working and what things are not working? I'd like to see constructive criticism of the system and suggestions for solutions, rather than the finger-pointing and whining that these things sometimes turn into. Also, I'm not really interested in how often any particular player sees or doesn't see animations, because while I think that's fun, it's not about plots. Here we are talking about plots: Thinking them up, driving them, involving other PCs in them, staff response to them.

Some observations I have made about the system from staff-side:

-- Players do get told "no" fairly frequently about plots they want to run. There can be a lot of reasons for this: Game or clan or player balance, lack of Zalanthan technology to do such a thing, doesn't make IC sense, etc. Thus far I have not seen any "no"s given where I didn't think it was very solid--and there is a lot of dialogue staff-side about these things, from all quarters. That is, if you're told no, there's a very good reason behind it.

-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

-- Frequent player reporting helps plots move along. Staff assumes that if you're not telling us what you're doing toward a plotline, then you don't care about it. So if you do care about it, please tell us about it. We're not going to just step in and take over; if player interest fizzles, the plot fizzles. I suggest weekly reports that detail your plot progress.

-- Running your plot ideas OOCly past your clan staff before you ever do anything toward them in game is very helpful. Sometimes there are OOC reasons why a plot cannot proceed, and you will be told that up front before wasting your efforts. If there aren't OOC reasons, we'll say that, and then you can proceed to try it out.

-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

-- Everyone always wants war. But, war is very time-intensive for staff (buildup, battles, and then aftermath) and it also leads to a lot of player complaints of unfairness if it's between PC groups. Might I suggest that players look into cold war, instead of hot war? Envision what a Zalanthan cold war and covert actions against individuals and organizations might look like. I can't/won't guarantee this can happen either, but I think it's more viable.

-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

So those are some observations and suggestions I have. Your thoughts?

  As a relic from a bygone arm era - I would love to see more action outside of the established imm-run clans, and a higher focus on adventure than on political (i.e. less sponsored noble / GMH family roles). More of the 'man against the established highly oppressing order'.

Quote from: lepxii on September 15, 2010, 12:13:00 PM
As a relic from a bygone arm era - I would love to see more action outside of the established imm-run clans, and a higher focus on adventure than on political (i.e. less sponsored noble / GMH family roles). More of the 'man against the established highly oppressing order'.

Sounds fun. What are your plans to make that happen?

(See what I did there?)

Well if it was me running that unclanned thing, I'd make sure I have someone with the wagonmaking skill, and build a - oh wait. Not implemented, no wagon objects allowed to independents..

Okay then instead I'd slowly build my empire, and then kidnap and enslave the..erm - no, that's not allowed anymore.. hm.

Oh I know! I'll amass tens of thousands of sids and open a new merchant shop in uh - oh wait the Governor of that area is a PC who hasn't logged in for the past 3 RL months..damn..

I could always hire the Byn to - arrgh the shield wall, again? Really?

Maybe my elf could buy a skimmer and - shit.

I'll have my character learn *x* language and and form an alliance with - yeah, no.

I could hire a magicker to *y*..oh they can't do that anymore can they. Gosh.

Gee.

I guess all the ideas I have, are no longer possible, as they once were.

If players are driving the car that is the game's plots (hence "player-driven"), then staff can be likened to the people that build highways. The road and exits represent reasonable options for plots and the guardrails keep you from going off-road into doing things that don't make sense for the game-world or benefit the players.

I think what Talia says makes a lot of sense. Let's face it: players can't do everything alone. We can't build taverns or lead rebellions against a city-state on a whim because these things take a lot of effort and support to pull off. Even groups of players can't do these kinds of things unless they are all prepared. But once they are all prepared, it's a matter of getting staff to load a new building into the game, or rioting NPCs in areas, etc. Sometimes even that won't work if what you want to do is simply impossible, but I think a lot of players forget, for better or worse, that player-driven =/= player-led. We come up with the ideas, and we do all the footwork IG to pull stuff off - and then, staff use their own tools to make the game world reflect the actions of the players.

Complaints crop up from time to time about the new player-driven staff policy and how people just aren't seeing the effects of it. This seems to me like a bad start in a group project in school or at work. A bunch of people are grouped together and given some tasks to do, but no one within the group wants to take the lead and get to work.

Think about how that situation applies to Armageddon. Right now, if you can't see things IG that need doing, you may need to try harder in your searching, or search in other parts of the game. If absolutely no players are doing anything plot-like around you... I know this is a cliche around here, but be the change. Apply for sponsored roles or submit normal apps that would be able to do or help with the things you want to see being done or helped with, or find a way that your current character can get involved.

The one and only thing that I would like to see, are the players saying "I would like to see <plot idea>" changing their tune to "I would like to do <plot idea>". There are a lot of capable players here that can be up to this task.

First, I have to say that over all I like the way things currently are.

Though I do wish the animation of clan leaders/elders was put back in. I don't like doing everything in email/request tool, at least when they would be more fun or interesting handled IG. Even if it is simply asking some questions.

I've had no problems starting plots, finding plots, meddling in plots. And the nice thing is, you can be pretty sure it is player driven and so what you do might actually have an affect.

Quote-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I try to do this, but man, you guys tend to be really vague on the answers. Know that when a player asks staff when they can be on for something, we really want the staffer(s) to say, I can do this at this time or this time. Then the players will work around that. It is easier for us to do then getting the "I might be able to be around when your having the RPT" or even worse, "You guys figure it out and let me know then I'll let you know if I can be there."

Quote-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

Not everything needed is exciting...but hey, building things is one of the best ways to make lasting impressions on the game world, so fun in another way, and exciting five PCs and six years later.

Quote-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

I know this is true, but I don't really agree it should be. Sure, if I run a plot that involves three clans I am involving a larger number of staff so there is more over all staff interest. But if it is just in clan the in clan staff interest should be just as good.

Quote-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

For me, If the plot does not require staff intervention to complete, if your not paying attention, you are going to find out after the fact. Keep in mind, the key words there are "does not require" clan changes would require, building things, pretty much any large scale stuff would also require. But if I start a plot to kill off Agent Amos of Kurac, I'm going to keep it totally IG, you want to find out about it and you will have to animate somebody and find out IG.

Quote-- Players do get told "no" fairly frequently about plots they want to run. There can be a lot of reasons for this: Game or clan or player balance, lack of Zalanthan technology to do such a thing, doesn't make IC sense, etc. Thus far I have not seen any "no"s given where I didn't think it was very solid--and there is a lot of dialogue staff-side about these things, from all quarters. That is, if you're told no, there's a very good reason behind it.

For the record, I have never been told no, but yes, it is a good idea to run any idea you have on any plot that could possibly be game world changing past staff. Though I've never been told no, I have been offered other ideas, usually they make sense and make progress smoother on my end.

And game world changing does not mean stuff like blowing up allanak. Well, it does, but not only that. Anything from wanting to drill a peephole in lady templar fancy pants dressing room door to things that would simply cause a doc change or new npcs, old npcs being removed etc etc.

Anyway, aside from the afore mentioned desire to have some things handled ICly more often by animated npc leaders etc. I have been satisfied with current policy.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

I agree that players shouldn't make all the decisions, but if it's a player-driven plot, I think their input should be seriously taken into account.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Frequent player reporting helps plots move along. Staff assumes that if you're not telling us what you're doing toward a plotline, then you don't care about it. So if you do care about it, please tell us about it. We're not going to just step in and take over; if player interest fizzles, the plot fizzles. I suggest weekly reports that detail your plot progress.

I agree with your first point. I disagree with your second. Why can't you as staff infuse a plot with a little spice if it begins to unravel. You're here not just to be facilitators, but also guides that help steer things along if something bad happens. Doing nothing contributes just that: nothing to the dynamic of the world. If things are allowed to fall apart, the world becomes static. Boring.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Running your plot ideas OOCly past your clan staff before you ever do anything toward them in game is very helpful. Sometimes there are OOC reasons why a plot cannot proceed, and you will be told that up front before wasting your efforts. If there aren't OOC reasons, we'll say that, and then you can proceed to try it out.

I agree with your first point. I'm drawing a blank on what ooc reasons could possible cause staff to railroad a players plot. Can you give examples? Thanks.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

Why should this be a prerequisite? Isn't it enough justification to move a plot forward if your own underlings are trying to begin a story? Why do we need multiple people involved? It's only natural for players to gravitate towards plots, if you as staff only give the creator a chance to begin something. IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.  :o

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

Why are building plots boring? You claim you want conflict in the above citation, only to contrast that with the statement that (and I'm paraphrasing) "players always want wars". Which is it? If the players are interesting in building something, isn't that all that matters? Isn't that enough?

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Everyone always wants war. But, war is very time-intensive for staff (buildup, battles, and then aftermath) and it also leads to a lot of player complaints of unfairness if it's between PC groups. Might I suggest that players look into cold war, instead of hot war? Envision what a Zalanthan cold war and covert actions against individuals and organizations might look like. I can't/won't guarantee this can happen either, but I think it's more viable.

Bring back Blackmoon, and create two guerilla factions of Northern/Southern sympathizers headquartered in their opposing city-state. Problem solved.

Currently, players cannot do such on their own, as the support of creating such things is non-existant. That is to say, it's not supported. You as staff, however, have the ability to do such.

Give me a coded raiding clan, a bow and a quiver of arrows. I'll bring you conflict.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I agree.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
So those are some observations and suggestions I have. Your thoughts?

I'll share a few.

1) Support a plot, even if you don't like it. Why? Because the players might like it. It might interest them. Hell, they may even surprise you. Don't be so fast to pull the plug.

2) When giving criticism, give constructive criticism as well. Telling a player "no, that won't work" doesn't solve anything. Instead, hint around that there might be another way, and let the players solve the riddle. If they can't, give them a hint. If you already do this, super.

3) Interaction with npcs depends upon your staffer. Some staff do not animate npcs often. Some do. It's a bit artificial, however, for it to be your policy to animate the smaller npcs, only to have half (maybe) of your staff do so.

4) I'm overall marginally pleased with the current level of interaction. In my current clan, I'm very pleased. In my previous one, not so much. It's relative to my third contention.

I think Staff should go back to driving the car. The playerbase should never be trusted with anything more than a permanent learner's license because we tend to.. EEPS! *crash*

I had to reply to this.

QuoteGive me a coded raiding clan, a bow and a quiver of arrows. I'll bring you conflict.

Red Fangs

Thank you for this thread. It's awesome to have a forum beyond the yearly meetings to have important discussions.

I have several thoughts and maybe a few will even be productive. I'll type them up as soon as I get home. (My stupid employer just doesn't get the importance of the GDB.)

Quote from: Malken on September 15, 2010, 12:56:01 PM
I think Staff should go back to driving the car. The playerbase should never be trusted with anything more than a permanent learner's license because we tend to.. EEPS! *crash*

Perhaps the car in my crappy analogy needs some body-work, but by and large I think it's not totaled.

Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2010, 12:56:40 PM
I had to reply to this.

QuoteGive me a coded raiding clan, a bow and a quiver of arrows. I'll bring you conflict.

Red Fangs

As if we weren't already aware of this.

The Blackmoon employs humans, muls, dwarves, half-giants, half-elves and elves.

Which more heavily involves the player-base?

Which clan/tribe is more distanced from the player-base?

The Red Fangs have as much potential to involve and affect the playerbase as any raiding clan would. If you're not seeing it, that just means you're not seeing it, not that it's not happening.

Other stuff I will reply to in a little while.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 01:02:53 PM
The Red Fangs have as much potential to involve and affect the playerbase as any raiding clan would. If you're not seeing it, that just means you're not seeing it, not that it's not happening.

The Red Fangs are limited. Limited in that only a desert elf can be a Red Fang. Minus slaves/cohorts (I added that for you my sweet X-D)

I never said I wasn't seeing change. I contention is that the Red Fangs limit opportunities for players to *ahem* raid. You can only have support as a raider if you're a desert elf. Blackmoon is the opposite side of that coin.

If you bring back Blackmoon, you can potentially involve many, many more players.

Quote from: Lizzie on September 15, 2010, 12:43:04 PM
Well if it was me running that unclanned thing, I'd make sure I have someone with the wagonmaking skill, and build a - oh wait. Not implemented, no wagon objects allowed to independents..

We don't reveal stuff we're working on for the most part.  We reveal stuff we have completed.  Fair point, it's not possible to build your own wagon...yet.

Quote
Okay then instead I'd slowly build my empire, and then kidnap and enslave the..erm - no, that's not allowed anymore.. hm.

It's totally allowed, go do it.

Quote
Oh I know! I'll amass tens of thousands of sids and open a new merchant shop in uh - oh wait the Governor of that area is a PC who hasn't logged in for the past 3 RL months..damn..

Invalid argument.

Quote
I could always hire the Byn to - arrgh the shield wall, again? Really?

Incomplete argument?

Quote
Maybe my elf could buy a skimmer and - shit.

Valid argument, though not in relation to your conclusion that implies this was once possible.

Quote
I'll have my character learn *x* language and and form an alliance with - yeah, no.

Huh?

Quote
I could hire a magicker to *y*..oh they can't do that anymore can they. Gosh.

Why not?

Quote
Gee.

I guess all the ideas I have, are no longer possible, as they once were.

I'd encourage you to drive over the speedbumps rather than view them as brick walls.

Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2010, 12:46:39 PM

Quote-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I try to do this, but man, you guys tend to be really vague on the answers. Know that when a player asks staff when they can be on for something, we really want the staffer(s) to say, I can do this at this time or this time. Then the players will work around that. It is easier for us to do then getting the "I might be able to be around when your having the RPT" or even worse, "You guys figure it out and let me know then I'll let you know if I can be there."

I'm not fond of vagueness myself, but sometimes it's hard for staffers to be less than vague because we all have lives, too. Personally, if you were to ask me about a specific date and time, I will usually give you a firm answer one way or another. But do I think there is room for improvement with the firm answers? Probably. I can't promise this from other staffers, though.

Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2010, 12:46:39 PM

Quote-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

Not everything needed is exciting...but hey, building things is one of the best ways to make lasting impressions on the game world, so fun in another way, and exciting five PCs and six years later.

I don't mean to say that building plots should not be pursued. They are their own kind of low-key fun, and they can involve quests for a number of PCs, meetings, RPTs, all that stuff. I just personally do not want to see them being the only kinds of plots that are pursued. That's what I mean by they are "OK." They're good, but they shouldn't be our whole plot diet. I'd encourage leaders (by which I mean players pursuing plots) to try to put together an adventuring-focused plot for each building-focused plot they undertake, to balance it out; and I'd also encourage players to look for ways to insert more conflict into building-focused plots.

Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2010, 12:46:39 PM

Quote-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

I know this is true, but I don't really agree it should be. Sure, if I run a plot that involves three clans I am involving a larger number of staff so there is more over all staff interest. But if it is just in clan the in clan staff interest should be just as good.

Mostly this is for practical reasons. If just you want to run a plot for just your clan, you will probably have the eyes, hands, time, ideas of just one to three staffers involved. If you expand that to include another clan (especially one outside your own clan group), then you will get another one to three staffers involved. And so on. More staffers are better because we have different schedules, different capabilities, and different areas of interest. Some of us really like to build, some love to animate, some can write or modify scripts, etc. E.g.: If you're trying to run the thing just for your clan and I'm your staffer, but your whole clan is on GMT time...well, you're not going to have much of me for real-time support, because I'm not on GMT.

Another reason is that you're more likely to get necessary Admin or Producer support for your plot if it's bigger and involves more players. Admins and Producers are responsible for looking at the overall staff workload, balancing it, and ultimately saying yes or no to stuff that Storytellers propose. They want bang for their buck on staff time.

Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2010, 12:46:39 PM

Quote-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

For me, If the plot does not require staff intervention to complete, if your not paying attention, you are going to find out after the fact. Keep in mind, the key words there are "does not require" clan changes would require, building things, pretty much any large scale stuff would also require. But if I start a plot to kill off Agent Amos of Kurac, I'm going to keep it totally IG, you want to find out about it and you will have to animate somebody and find out IG.

You're right, there are plot things for which staff aren't required to give you permission. We do appreciate it when you give us and any other relevant clans a heads-up if you're going to do something negative to another PC or clan; not so we can stop you, just because we want to know and not get surprised, because there is often fallout or some kind of response needed. But if you want to change the clan structure, or build a temple to Muk, or whatever--right, you're going to need permission of some kind to do that.

Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2010, 12:46:39 PMAnd game world changing does not mean stuff like blowing up allanak. Well, it does, but not only that. Anything from wanting to drill a peephole in lady templar fancy pants dressing room door to things that would simply cause a doc change or new npcs, old npcs being removed etc etc.

I really agree with this. Not everything has to be huge. Sometimes some things will be, but not mostly.

Wagons: Right. Valid point. And since we're not told when we can, there's no point in even making the attempt, or considering including it in a plotline.
Kidnapping and enslaving a templar or noble or anyone else for that matter - not an option. Mandatory auto-store per recent policy. I don't know why you think it's totally allowed.
Elves on skimmers - it was allowed. Or rather, there was never a policy stating that it wasn't allowed, and there have been elves who have purchased and used skimmers, until that policy was specified.
X Language - certain languages can no longer be learned in certain ways, and others can no longer be learned at all.
Magickers doing "y" - certain spells that used to be able to do certain things, can no longer do those things.

Things that USED to be possible, which people USED to use as plot devices, are no longer possible, OR no longer allowed. Many of those vehicles for plot devices are popular, and fun, and interesting, and brought up tons of conflict that involved lots of people. They are no longer an option.

Quote from: Lizzie on September 15, 2010, 12:43:04 PM

Okay then instead I'd slowly build my empire, and then kidnap and enslave the..erm - no, that's not allowed anymore.. hm.

Kidnapping is okey I guess, codedly or using whatever authority to make someone a socially recognized slave is not.

Quote

Oh I know! I'll amass tens of thousands of sids and open a new merchant shop in uh - oh wait the Governor of that area is a PC who hasn't logged in for the past 3 RL months..damn..

In my experience, that Tuluki door isn't closed. You'd probably need an organization of some sort to back you up. PC availability isn't the main obstacle.

Quote

I could always hire the Byn to - arrgh the shield wall, again? Really?

Jumping off the Shield wall is tradition, but hiring people, including the Byn, to do dirty work sure is a viable route to get some stuff done.

Quote

I'll have my character learn *x* language and and form an alliance with - yeah, no.

Forming alliances would depend on a lot of different factors. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not.

Quote

I could hire a magicker to *y*..oh they can't do that anymore can they. Gosh.

Hiring and using/utilizing isn't the same thing.

Me, I kind of like player-driven. I don't miss huge staff-driven plots, though I sometimes think it would be nice with more smaller staff initiated plots created to reflect clan attitude and interests. In my experience, such things add a welcome spice to the game world, even in cases where they are minor and short-term.

One thing in favor of player driven plots is that it's easier to understand why they don't progress (when a PC is unable to pursue the plot appropriately, perhaps by dying). I've always been frustrated when staff initiated plots fade away, and you just can't figure out why, from the IC perspective.

QuoteWe do appreciate it when you give us and any other relevant clans a heads-up if you're going to do something negative to another PC or clan; not so we can stop you, just because we want to know and not get surprised, because there is often fallout or some kind of response needed.

Staff are people too...and OOC info is OOC info no matter if your on staff or not, and you guys already have many tools to garner that.

I've found that on matters that do not require staff assistance before hand, better and more realistic responses are if it is at least somewhat a surprise to them.

Anecdotal bit here.
Some 8 or 9 years ago I had a PC with plans against a medium ranked PC member of a clan. I informed staff of that intention. About 12 hours later that PC got staff transfered to a new area and started having 3 guards instead of 1.
When my PC started to try and take the action, npcs came out of the woodwork before anything was done.

Now, was that staff cheating? I don't have proof on the matter, but you know what I suspect.

Later, on a new PC, he and a certain Mul slave decided to run off together, Staff was informed by wish AS it was happening, the response was far more realistic...and fun.

What always turned me off of trying to develop plots is there is limited staff manpower to do plots so unless the staff likes you, your plot will probably be ignored/denied. Even if your plot is great and will involve everyone and everyone will enjoy it, staff has to "like you" or as they call it "trust you" for anything to happen.

So I usually try and NEVER make my plot(s) require staff intervention. So its limited, but you can still have a good amount of fun at least, just not change the world.

Quote from: Lizzie on September 15, 2010, 01:29:13 PM
Wagons: Right. Valid point. And since we're not told when we can, there's no point in even making the attempt, or considering including it in a plotline.

So:  until there are craftable wagons or whatever, steal one from someone else, or expand your horizon beyond "I need a wagon to do X."

Quote
Kidnapping and enslaving a templar or noble or anyone else for that matter - not an option. Mandatory auto-store per recent policy. I don't know why you think it's totally
allowed.

Do you honestly believe that if your PC had:

the means (takes resources/skill)
a plan (takes forethought and skill)
the balls (most people wouldn't even try this)

to kidnap a noble or templar, that staff would not allow it?  Enslaving is enslaving, only templars can enslave someone, so that sorta tosses that out the window too--but for grins, let's say you're a non-templar, non-noble, indie that manages to kidnap a templar or noble and wants to enslave them (for whatever dire purpose).  

Quote
Elves on skimmers - it was allowed. Or rather, there was never a policy stating that it wasn't allowed, and there have been elves who have purchased and used skimmers, until that policy was specified.

As best I can tell by perusing staff-side IDB conversations, skimmers didn't exist to buy at a merchant until recently, at which point people asked about elves, at which point staff discussed it and said "no."  No one asked before that, so sure, I imagine elves could have been on silt skimmers before if they were provided by staff.  Valid, though, in that there never was a policy on it in particular, yes.

Quote
X Language - certain languages can no longer be learned in certain ways, and others can no longer be learned at all.

I still don't see the problem, I'm sorry.  Is this a reference to bugfixes?  A reference to certain races or tribes that don't exist in a playable fashion (dead, closed clans, whatever)?  You can try to learn the mantis language and ally with them, I think they'd like to put you in the position of Head Lunchlady.   You can try to learn the Anyali language and ally with them, but since they're a closed clan, you'd be setting this up with staff just for the benefit of your PC.  If it is on the behalf of a larger clan or group, then it can't hurt to ask and at least put forth the effort for it.  

Quote
Magickers doing "y" - certain spells that used to be able to do certain things, can no longer do those things.

I also don't see the problem here either, I'm sorry.  Is this a reference to bugfixes?  I'm honestly curious about this one as I don't have a clue about it, so feel free to put in a request to elaborate if it is too sensitive for the GDB.

Quote
Things that USED to be possible, which people USED to use as plot devices, are no longer possible, OR no longer allowed. Many of those vehicles for plot devices are popular, and fun, and interesting, and brought up tons of conflict that involved lots of people. They are no longer an option.

I won't deny that.  Feel free to continue on any other dialogue, too--I just took issue with the specific examples you presented, as they didn't really seem to be roadblocks towards player plots.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 15, 2010, 02:11:30 PMunless the staff likes you, your plot will probably be ignored/denied.

I'm a staffer (so take it with a grain of salt) but I disagree with this particular statement.  

edit to add:  unless you treat your staff badly, in which case you'll get notes on that, and yes--we don't like that.  We volunteer to do the job, and we do not volunteer to put up with written abuse.

QuoteI try to do this, but man, you guys tend to be really vague on the answers.

In a different context, staff seem to in general be very concise in your responses.  I can understand why, in general.  However, I am not looking for messages that look like they come from corporate management (concise to the point of loosing any meaning).  Especially in an era with limited senior NPC animation, I'm not only looking for a yes/no.  I am looking for context, understanding of the various NPC reactions, emotions, etc.  In short, if there are limited IG interactions with senior NPCs, the reports for characters via request tool should stop looking so much like reports of activity and more like more in depth communication.  Perhaps I simply don't structure mine right, but until very recently this is what I experienced.  Getting a one or two line reply to paragraphs of information is not generally going to give me what I am looking for.

As for player driven vs staff driven, I like the idea of the player driven.  What I miss is the special circumstances a staff driven plot can have.  Bringing to life places, NPCs, Objects, abilities, etc. that aren't viable for players to experience normally, perhaps unknown to players, and thus somewhat hard to include in a player driven plot.  As long as staff make sure to sprinkle special situations, objects, granted abilities etc. into player driven plots, as part of something the player came up with or in addition to it, I would be satisfied.  I'd love to give examples to clarify, but can't, obviously.

Quote from: Nyr on September 15, 2010, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 15, 2010, 02:11:30 PMunless the staff likes you, your plot will probably be ignored/denied.

I'm a staffer (so take it with a grain of salt) but I disagree with this particular statement. 

Well its only anecdotal evidence on my part as I have no idea what/why/how staff does many things, But I have played the game for ten years. Over time you tend to notice how some sets of players tend to get their shit approved while others don't and the plot(s) seem fairly similar and comparable at least from the outside.

Quote from: Twilight on September 15, 2010, 02:24:14 PM
In a different context, staff seem to in general be very concise in your responses.  I can understand why, in general.  However, I am not looking for messages that look like they come from corporate management (concise to the point of loosing any meaning).  Especially in an era with limited senior NPC animation, I'm not only looking for a yes/no.  I am looking for context, understanding of the various NPC reactions, emotions, etc.  In short, if there are limited IG interactions with senior NPCs, the reports for characters via request tool should stop looking so much like reports of activity and more like more in depth communication.  Perhaps I simply don't structure mine right, but until very recently this is what I experienced.  Getting a one or two line reply to paragraphs of information is not generally going to give me what I am looking for.

If you want something specific, I would suggest you specifically ask for it. For example, if you want to know how Joe Negean feels about your idea, ask in your request "How does Joe Negean himself feel about my idea?" We aren't mindworms and don't know that's what you want unless you tell us it's what you want. Being as clear as possible with us helps us give you what you want.

Also, if you don't get what you seek in a response, you can email back (even after the request is closed) and say, "Can you give me more detail about blah?" Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't.

Quote from: Twilight on September 15, 2010, 02:24:14 PMAs for player driven vs staff driven, I like the idea of the player driven.  What I miss is the special circumstances a staff driven plot can have.  Bringing to life places, NPCs, Objects, abilities, etc. that aren't viable for players to experience normally, perhaps unknown to players, and thus somewhat hard to include in a player driven plot.  As long as staff make sure to sprinkle special situations, objects, granted abilities etc. into player driven plots, as part of something the player came up with or in addition to it, I would be satisfied.  I'd love to give examples to clarify, but can't, obviously.

We will definitely bring those things in if there is room in the plot, it makes IC sense, and there's not some OOC reason for not doing so. Staff are very creative and very enthusiastic about putting interesting things into plots for you. I'd love to give examples too, but can't, obviously :D But I assure you, we will do this when we can.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 15, 2010, 02:28:03 PMOver time you tend to notice how some sets of players tend to get their shit approved while others don't and the plot(s) seem fairly similar and comparable at least from the outside.

Too many variables (are you comparing good players that have high karma and good notes to players with low/no karma, bad notes, or just a bad reputation with staff?).  If you'd like, send in a request, I'll look into specific examples, and while I may not be able to give you details, I can tell you whether or not favoritism was involved.  There have been a lot of new staff policies for staffers in the past 10 years, many towards reducing the kind of favoritism to which you refer (since these policies did have to be enacted, it gives credence to there having been some instances of favoritism before).  I was referring to you also since we seem to disagree on the GDB in this instance yet I have approved at least one thing for you.  Some players can be absolutely irritating on the GDB, but if they are good roleplayers and not irritating in the same way in direct staff communication, I personally will be willing to work with them on their plots.  (You know who you are.)

I don't think staff likes me. (far from it)

But I've never had problems with the plots I've had.

As has been posted before in this thread. And on past threads (LoD had a good one some time ago) there are certain...Hoops...one has to jump through. No way around it. If you neglect them your plots will fail or go VERY slow.

I'm not going to search for LoD's post, it is rather old.

But with Thrain, he had to inform staff of intentions, he had to involve PC AND NPC population, he had to work each step and I'm betting that since it was before request tool, there was dozens of emails on his part every week. And a lot of work staff side.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
We aren't mindworms and don't know that's what you want unless you tell us it's what you want. Being as clear as possible with us helps us give you what you want.

This pretty much illustrates my point.  I am talking precisely about giving players contextual information beyond what they have specifically asked for in their reports.  As it is, I'm not even burying my questions in my reports any more...I have a section I am dedicating to "Questions I would specifically like answered."  And only those questions get answered.  Very concisely.  That is the problem I am trying to highlight.

Quote from: Twilight on September 15, 2010, 02:55:53 PM
This pretty much illustrates my point.  I am talking precisely about giving players contextual information beyond what they have specifically asked for in their reports.  As it is, I'm not even burying my questions in my reports any more...I have a section I am dedicating to "Questions I would specifically like answered."  And only those questions get answered.  Very concisely.  That is the problem I am trying to highlight.

Ah. I think what you mean...if I'm interpreting correctly...is that you want to feel the same nuances you used to get by meeting with an NPC who's being animated. Is that it? So if you were playing a noble and meeting with your noble boss, you'd get hints dropped about the plots going on around you, or about how your organization should feel about another organization, etc. That kind of context?

That is a good deal of it.  Essentially, it seems to me that information used to be offered up from the staff side.  Now what I see are concise responses that pretty much only address my specific questions.

Asking questions and receiving answers is great.  I just don't think using that format as the bulk of the communication format is very satisfying.  Especially when the tendancy is to be concise, rather than elaborate on things.  I understand that being concise on the staff side is probably the most efficient, for staff.  Please understand it isn't necessarily the most efficient or satisfying experience for the player (or this player, at least).

I'd really love staff giving INPUT on your characters and what they're doing, be it through NPCs he/she might meet (bosses, servants, commoners, passer-bys, traders) or through perhaps more OOC channels. Sometimes even the smallest of plot hints can spiral into larger more awesome things. I know I've received such in the past, but back when I started in 2007 I had access to a staff avatar at all times, and didn't realize it until a good while after I moved on from that character. It was awesome. So awesome in fact that I sort of miss it.

Disclaimer: This is how _I_ would view things from strictly a players stand-point, without bringing in any knowledge of fact or fiction I may know from time on staff.

How does hands off need fixing/adjusting etc:

What's hands off about it? Staff still run the show. If a plot or storyline doesn't fit the time-frame or "Grand Vision" (tm) that the minority decide on, it's just not going to happen. I believe that this new staffing policy has lead to increased tensions between players and staff. This policy makes it far more clear that the bottom line is, it's your (staffs) game, and we're allowed to play it. Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

Without staff just driving the car (openly) with their own plots/storylines, various players will become butt-hurt when they see PC X get his/her plot supported because it "fits" with what staff want to have happen, or otherwise won't affect a single thing on the larger scale, while their own are repeatedly declined for lack of fit. I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Again, that is what I believe the impression is. Maybe I should make a poll to see if I got it right.  :P

Quote from: Shabago on September 15, 2010, 03:50:44 PM
Disclaimer: This is how _I_ would view things from strictly a players stand-point, without bringing in any knowledge of fact or fiction I may know from time on staff.

How does hands off need fixing/adjusting etc:

What's hands off about it? Staff still run the show. If a plot or storyline doesn't fit the time-frame or "Grand Vision" (tm) that the minority decide on, it's just not going to happen. I believe that this new staffing policy has lead to increased tensions between players and staff. This policy makes it far more clear that the bottom line is, it's your (staffs) game, and we're allowed to play it. Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

Without staff just driving the car (openly) with their own plots/storylines, various players will become butt-hurt when they see PC X get his/her plot supported because it "fits" with what staff want to have happen, or otherwise won't affect a single thing on the larger scale, while their own are repeatedly declined for lack of fit. I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Again, that is what I believe the impression is. Maybe I should make a poll to see if I got it right.  :P

Bolded the biggest things I agree with, and, erm.... Did a bit more with the BIGGEST point.

I've had staff tell me that if they "think I do not fit into the world", I will be stored, no questions or comments allowed. To me, this comes down to the staff basically saying "I do not like you as a player and I do not what to deal with you so I'm going to force you to move on and this action I'm doing will make you stay away from any other clan I'm over so I will never have to deal with you again. Mwhahaha."

Now, that's not always the intention, but that's how it's come off to me on more than one occasion.

Talking about particular problems that you experienced with staff over the activities of a particular PC is a derail. You may bring that up in a different thread. This thread is for talking about plots, not PCs.

Quote from: Shabago on September 15, 2010, 03:50:44 PM
Disclaimer: This is how _I_ would view things from strictly a players stand-point, without bringing in any knowledge of fact or fiction I may know from time on staff.

How does hands off need fixing/adjusting etc:

What's hands off about it? Staff still run the show. If a plot or storyline doesn't fit the time-frame or "Grand Vision" (tm) that the minority decide on, it's just not going to happen. I believe that this new staffing policy has lead to increased tensions between players and staff. This policy makes it far more clear that the bottom line is, it's your (staffs) game, and we're allowed to play it. Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

Without staff just driving the car (openly) with their own plots/storylines, various players will become butt-hurt when they see PC X get his/her plot supported because it "fits" with what staff want to have happen, or otherwise won't affect a single thing on the larger scale, while their own are repeatedly declined for lack of fit. I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Again, that is what I believe the impression is. Maybe I should make a poll to see if I got it right.  :P

The veiled separation of in game and out of game always exacerbates conflict. There's no avoiding that. The same mystery that makes the game interesting builds doubt in players that hit speed bumps, or full on roadblocks. They get to wonder "is this all ic?" or "Maybe the staff are just trying to stop me?"

You can't have one without the other. Total transparency would solve the problem, but you don't really want that.

I like grand plots, and staff involvement in plots, and I also like player plots. The staff always facilitate those things to varying degrees. Some of them fly, and some of them hit brick walls. The key to success is to improve your communication with the staff, and in doing so, your relationship with them. Surprises lead to hurt feelings on both sides of the fence.

Players that want to be successfully involved in big plots need to:

A:   Be patient.  (Sometimes you'll have unresponsive staff, unresponsive players, misunderstandings, conflicts, and so on. You have to be willing to wait through the dry spells, and things take TIME.)
B:  Trust the staff. (They are usually hear for the good of the game, and doing their best. It might not always be true, but you'll be happier if you assume it is.)
C:  Learn to communicate with staff. (And hope that they're as interested in communication as you are.)
D:   Acquire a knowledge of the game world that allows you to discern somewhat reliably between "possible ic" and "impossible ic."  (You need to know what's possible, and that's learned through trial and error. Watch effective players, and work with them.)


...this thread made me miss the game. Lizzie is still grouchy, Nyr is still reasonable, XD is still cantankerous, and so forth. I'm glad to see everyone is staying ic, and I miss it all! Someone pay me a reasonable wage to come back and play.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 04:09:33 PM
Talking about particular problems that you experienced with staff over the activities of a particular PC is a derail. You may bring that up in a different thread. This thread is for talking about plots, not PCs.

Actually, I was responding to Shabago saying that it's the staff's game, we're just allowed to play it. I'm not talking about a particular PC.

Such has been true for plot lines as well. We have an End of the World plot line we're SLOWLY trying to follow. If the ideas I have never fit with that, and I don't get any assistance from staff as to what I COULD be doing, I'm just plain stuck. It's the staff's game, we're just allowed to play it.

I've enjoyed the new policy.

When Staff doesn't want me to run a plot (IE: One of my PC's gets told by a superior IG that they don't think that's a good idea, yada yada) if it is still IC for my character to do what he or she wants to do, they will do it. They will...Wait for it...Disobey their boss! With the potential of...Waaaaait...Consequences!

Sure -- A lot of plots like making a new building, making a new wagon...Things that rely on Staff intervention...Well, they need just that. Staff intervention. And if they are not on board, you are fucked.

On the other hand -- Player driven plots are driven by players. Most of the time, you do not need to do anything besides inform the Staff of your intended actions, or actions already taken.

--

I think we can have Staff fill in the deets a bit with clan emails back and forth (ALA What Twilight said), but other than that, i'm totally fine with the system as is. I enjoy NPC interaction from time to time, but don't rely on it. Railroad plots are also fun from time to time, but again, i'd rather them be the exception than the rule.

Quote from: tortall on September 15, 2010, 04:27:17 PM
We have an End of the World plot line we're SLOWLY trying to follow. If the ideas I have never fit with that, and I don't get any assistance from staff as to what I COULD be doing, I'm just plain stuck. It's the staff's game, we're just allowed to play it.

I would recommend that you don't attempt to "fit" what you are doing to what the staff has done or is doing. The end of the world will come when it comes, how it comes. Meantime, there are tons of other plots that you (or anyone) could be pursuing that have absolutely nothing to do with the end of the world. Not to mention, unless your PC has significant personal reasons to believe in an end to the world and to try to work something out regarding it--it doesn't make a lot of IC sense to try doing. Just play what you want to play because you want to play it.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 04:30:57 PM

Quote from: tortall on September 15, 2010, 04:27:17 PM
We have an End of the World plot line we're SLOWLY trying to follow. If the ideas I have never fit with that, and I don't get any assistance from staff as to what I COULD be doing, I'm just plain stuck. It's the staff's game, we're just allowed to play it.

I would recommend that you don't attempt to "fit" what you are doing to what the staff has done or is doing. The end of the world will come when it comes, how it comes. Meantime, there are tons of other plots that you (or anyone) could be pursuing that have absolutely nothing to do with the end of the world. Not to mention, unless your PC has significant personal reasons to believe in an end to the world and to try to work something out regarding it--it doesn't make a lot of IC sense to try doing. Just play what you want to play because you want to play it.

The thing is, I don't try. But -because- they don't fit, nothing happens. This is from -my- view. I've heard others say they don't have this issue.


I WOULD like to state that over all I do enjoy player-driven plots, but I'd -also- like to see a few more STAFF plots. Sometimes players just get stuck, and even small little plots that a stffer could do would nudge them to go on and do something the PLAYER would've never thought of.

And also, everything Twilight said. It took me over a year or emailing every week to learn how to phrase my updates in a way that I could get a RESPONSE to my questions. Even then, sometimes it seemed my staffer did not get that I was asking what some of the NPCs in my clan thought, and was hoping for a response.

One suggestion that I would like to put forth is more support for PC "antagonists" in the form of clans, etc.  Conflict is what makes any good story (or in this case, plot) interesting, but, at present, there aren't very many antagonists small enough to be affected by player-driven plots.  Mostly, you see:

- Red Fangs
- Rogue magickers

Most independent characters do their best to get along, and few rise in power enough to warrant a thwarting plot that involves more than a few people (at best).

Bringing back the Blackmoon may help, or maybe introducing a new clan altogether.  Players will roll PCs for such things if they are publicly available and staff-supported.  Without any true "enemies" of the major clans, however, I fear most of our conflicts will remain petty squabbles.

The response to this will likely be, "do it yourself", but it seems like a daunting (if not impossible) task without dedicated staff support from the get-go.  :(

pardon, if I missed the answer to this.  Am I understanding things right? If my character kidnaps, blackmails, charms, or bribes a noble/templar into learning Read/write, that character will get stored?

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 02:59:52 PM

Ah. I think what you mean...if I'm interpreting correctly...is that you want to feel the same nuances you used to get by meeting with an NPC who's being animated. Is that it? So if you were playing a noble and meeting with your noble boss, you'd get hints dropped about the plots going on around you, or about how your organization should feel about another organization, etc. That kind of context?

Personally, I greatly prefer this kind of interaction than email/requests.  For a dozen reasons, but the main two I have are this:

1)  When an interaction happens in the game world, it's part of the game and doesn't feel like an OOC chore or work.  It's much more enriching than via email as well, because it's an actual conversation rather than an email chain that might take a few days to resolve.
2)  Interactions with NPC's in the game can be overheard, intercepted, ectera, making it potentially something interesting for more than just the person in the clan.


I recognize this is much harder to do for staff though, because you can't track the conversations as easily, can't take a few days to think before responding, finding out times to meet with people in different timezones, etc.

Quote from: Dar on September 15, 2010, 05:01:39 PM
pardon, if I missed the answer to this.  Am I understanding things right? If my character kidnaps, blackmails, charms, or bribes a noble/templar into learning Read/write, that character will get stored?

No. What Lizzie said was "kidnap/enslave" with the problem there being slavery. Slaves aren't playable and if a PC is enslaved they will be stored.

Chipping in on two topics...

1)  Character Reports:  I agree with some of what has been said about the response to character reports.  As a leader, I didn't feel like I necessarily needed LONGER responses, but sometimes I did wish that I had a better feel for the context of the clan.  I had no problem coming up with plots/goals, but I often did feel as if my ultimately rather low-ranked leader was operating in a complete and total vacuum.  The times that staff made the context of the clan abundantly clear, especially during two different animations that were truly quite helpful, I always appreciated it greatly.  For the most part, especially since it was my first time in a leadership role, I just had no idea how either my character or I as a player was doing or how the clan reacted to me.  I could have constantly asked, of course, but I was asking so many OTHER questions and sending staff hunting after lots of other tidbits and info that I didn't want to be a burden.  It was also very unclear to me, at times, whether responses were IC (the clan feels this way about X) or OOC (staff feels this way about X).  I should have asked for clarification, but again, I was creating enough work as it was and even had to be told to send in fewer requests and questions because I was overwhelming my poor staffers. :)

2)  Adventure sub-plots:  I found it to be the easiest thing in the world to generate and drive "building" plots and I really enjoyed them.  This aspect of the game really appeals to me and I think it comes naturally to me.  I found it dastardly difficult to kick off adventure plots.  In part, this was because my active minions were all smart guys that liked staying alive.  In part, this was because my character/leader was also a smart guy and liked his minions staying alive.  When you're in a world context in which just stepping out of the gates in certain directions can lead to a quick death, "adventuring" just doesn't make logical sense to the types of characters that I tend to play (who all really like being alive, thank you).  There were a few adventure plot possibilities floating around, some even hinted at by staff, but every time I brought them up, everyone who respond with, "Please count me out of suicide" and my character couldn't help but agree.  If I'm going to pursue adventure plots, then the IC reward-potential needs to be fairly high and FEEL POSSIBLE.

Staff might be able to give players whose PCs are in positions to start plots ideas on what they could do. In that sense they wouldn't be creating plots for players, but giving PCs goals to accomplish following whichever path they desire. To use a random example, staff could animate a higher-up to approach a House Nenyuk Agent PC and instruct them to build a new apartment building. Now that player has to get creative and figure out on their own how to go about that. After the PC goes through all the IC hoops, the apartment gets added in, and hopefully the PC will have some ideas about what else he can do without a nudge from staff next time. In essence, the role of staff here was primarily to throw the bone (they also changed the area to accommodate the apartment building, but they would have done this if the player though of the plot himself).

If they don't already, staff might also consider rewarding PCs that complete plots or a series of plots, if some kind of reward is warranted. Maybe in the previous example, the Nenyuk higher-up gives 10% of all the rent earned from that apartment to the PC Agent. Now not only is the PC getting more money which he can use for more plots, he is also encouraged to start a new plot: to encourage others to rent in the new apartment building.

Rewards that lead into plots are the best kind of reward. Instead of giving a noble a silver necklace for finishing an important plot, give her a chunk of raw silver the House seniors had on hand, and an invitation to go find someone to forge it into something nice. Money (especially a steady flow of it, which should be easy to give with the relatively new payday code) greases the wheels of some plots. Promotions open up more plots to promoted PCs since they gain more authority.

As to the point on conflict, I think a reasonable compromise between "starting a new clan/clans" (which requires a lot of staff work) and the laissez-faire "let players do it themselves" (which can be daunting or impossible as Goulet said) is sponsoring roles for the sole purpose of causing conflicts (that is not to say the current sponsored roles usually offered don't cause conflicts - they can, and should). Staff could choose players that have demonstrably handled certain types of conflicts well and set them up as raiders, dissenters against certain cities, deserters of certain clans, "terrorists", and worse. In this way, staff leave the conflicts to players, their sole role being dropping the conflict-starters into the game. In essence they are starting plots in this way, but the framework they will come up with will be very bare-bones. They could post on Staff Announcements asking for a few raiders, without being more specific, and give players the task of using their background to describe the PC's stomping grounds, methods, etc. It is up to the players on both sides of the conflict to decide how to proceed.

To clarify:  if a PC with the power to enslave someone does so, that eventual slave will be stored pretty soon afterwards.  PCs with the power to do so can do that anyway, they just need to understand that in advance.  If your character doesn't have the coded power to enslave someone but does have the skill, talent, and resources to kidnap a noble or templar, I think that's a different situation entirely, and likely to prompt major RP on all sides of the conflict.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on September 15, 2010, 04:52:27 PM
Bringing back the Blackmoon may help, or maybe introducing a new clan altogether.  Players will roll PCs for such things if they are publicly available and staff-supported.  Without any true "enemies" of the major clans, however, I fear most of our conflicts will remain petty squabbles.

I don't agree that bringing in new clans would be a good idea, numerous clans have been brought in of late (elf clans, so who cares, but my point stands) and they seem to dotCom bubble their way for a month or two and eventually people lose interest.


I would like to throw my hat into the ring of people saying thus:

The game, overall, is much better administratively than it was even a year ago. Things are smoother, staff is better about responding to things. However, somewhere along the way, adventures got put by the wayside. Players do a good job TRYING to involve others, but it doesn't always happen, and can make people feel left out. Sometimes a bit of a staff-run plot would be nice, a la "I think the players would enjoy it if this happened."

I will reference two plots that are a year old, but I will still be vague about it.

1. A certain elf tribe was attacking a certain city state, relentlessly. Not raiding, as much as being a general bother, tossing arrows and the like. This clan was, entirely, staff run. There was not a single PC. This plotline, for a good number of weeks, caught people's attention in trying to deal with the conflict, and though it ended with rather anti-climactic battles (Who could have known my PC was -so- awesome?) it was a great plot to be involved in.

2. On the flip side, there was another plotline started that dealt with the undead in the game. Now, I'm not sure if it just wasn't pursued by the PC powers-that-be (Perhaps) but it ended up just falling by the wayside. I felt it had great potential, but I suspect it didn't fit in with the timeline, or the gameworld.









All that said, I think one of my best staff-interaction times was when _CERTAIN_UNNAMED_STAFFER animated a creature inside a city that normally does not belong there, I -think-, as a plot line to mess with the clan he was overseeing. I was brought in on it, and in the end, it was an hour or so out of his time, some cool things happened, and there was a great story that that PC told until he was no longer being played. It didn't cause some "Exterminate all _CREATURE_TYPE's" or any overarching plot, it was just good, clean fun. Its was nice to feel that staff play this game -with- the players, alongside.

I'd like the Staff to take more of the reins.

Players, or the majority of us, are relatively content to live out our PC's small chunk of life. Not many contribute towards 'the big goal'. The way I see it, the playerbase is a slow-trotting cow. Sometimes, when not motivated, we are more than content to stop and chew on our patch of grass - And that's the end of it. Like a herder or Cowboy, sometimes we need to get poked and prodded back into action.

I know alot of players just WAITING for the chance to be the Hero. The Chance to help keep the ball rolling but I'm more comfortable when the staff develops the ball to be pushed.

The Staff see where they want to go, where they want to see the world of Zalanthas change - We the players are the tools, the implements of change. The world doesn't revolve solely around us.

I think a big problem with player-driven is that it limits plot involvement to a relatively few number of characters, since a lot of characters die before they get to the point of "okay, now lets start this plot."

And while player driven plots can involve those less-ancient characters, it essentially is relying on the older characters to start them (who may not be inclined to do so for whatever IC reasons.)

I should like to add something positive:

In my current clan, I've experienced more IMM-animated leader-type lead-ness, than I have in the last 18 months? worth of characters combined. Now, that is also a downer considering that my last 18 months? of characters combined didn't get much imm-animated lovin at all (and some clanned characters got zero).

I haven't been told what to do..I haven't felt the need to ask for OOC clarification on things, I haven't felt like I was being pressured one way or another on decisions my character has made, or that I've made as a player. It's been pretty awesome actually. I am being held accountable for my character's behavior, however I am -also- getting some "NPC lovin" from the staff, a rare "nudge" toward active participation in "interesting stuff going on with the clan," and I've been included and encouraged to be involved in plotlines that were not of my own devising. I totally love that. I LOVE it. It's totally high-calorie juicy animated goodness, in carefully measured doses.

I just really wish I could see more of this in all the clans, and I think a whole huge chunk of this kind of interaction has been missing ever since the "policy" change.

Edited because I -did- have a whole lot of imm animated leadership NPC lead-ness lovin when I first accepted a sponsored clan leadership role, but then they made that policy change like - 2 months later and it all fell totally silent. I can't remember how long ago it was, I thought it was around 2 years ago. Might be less.

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 15, 2010, 05:18:28 PM
As to the point on conflict, I think a reasonable compromise between "starting a new clan/clans" (which requires a lot of staff work) and the laissez-faire "let players do it themselves" (which can be daunting or impossible as Goulet said) is sponsoring roles for the sole purpose of causing conflicts (that is not to say the current sponsored roles usually offered don't cause conflicts - they can, and should). Staff could choose players that have demonstrably handled certain types of conflicts well and set them up as raiders, dissenters against certain cities, deserters of certain clans, "terrorists", and worse. In this way, staff leave the conflicts to players, their sole role being dropping the conflict-starters into the game. In essence they are starting plots in this way, but the framework they will come up with will be very bare-bones. They could post on Staff Announcements asking for a few raiders, without being more specific, and give players the task of using their background to describe the PC's stomping grounds, methods, etc. It is up to the players on both sides of the conflict to decide how to proceed.

I like the intent of your idea, but I'm going to counteroffer to your suggestion: As a part of the indies/tribals team, that means I help handle Unclanned staff. Most of your "conflict starter" ideas would fall into the Unclanned area. If a player is interested in playing this type of role, I would encourage him/her to send in a request to Unclanned staff to discuss realistic IC vectors for conflict and how they can go about achieving those conflicts 100% in game, 100% player-driven. No one needs to wait around for staff permission or support to start conflict, but if you want to do it long-term or large-scale, you will probably want to be in communication with the staff about that. That is to say: I'm not going to give you a private lair or boost your skills, but I will do my best to guide you just like any of my clan members. (Because you are, if you're Unclanned.)

re: all the talk about Red Fangs.

I think it would make sense if their was an open faction of outlaw raiders / group trying to overthrow a city-state. When I started I was under the impression from the helpfiles (and Rebel Class) that this was around. I guess it's not but having a group with a -specific- goal in mind

i.e.

1: Overthrow the standing government of Tuluk

1a: Raid / Attack anyone from His Ivory in the surrounding lands

1b: Try to start a war between Allanak and Tuluk (make sure you have an out with Allanak)

Very simple and player-driven.

Red Fangs (love em) are great but they seem to blow with the wind where their alliances / aims fall. Which is great. But its not what was referenced earlier.

n00b story about Plots:

I told someone who plays Arm not long ago:

"Gee, I've been playing Arm for 4 months now. Great fun. I think I'll spec app for a gicker and try to make him like some sort of zealous prophet. Give sermons outside of Tuluk. Have a simple belief system but the whole purpose would be to insight a war and have it really be player-driven. Add some excitement that everyone could take part in rather than sit in a tavern and see who can emote ennui the best"

Someone, a 10 year veteren of arm, said: "The staff, even if you got approved, would kill you for it. Wouldn't last at all. They may say it's interesting and let you go but you would die very fast b/c that stuff doesn't work here"

This was very discouraging. And I'm even hesitant to bring it up as I -really- enjoy arm and like sending in character reports to keep the staff updated on things but after hearing about that and reading how: "Oh, a few years ago I was going to kill an X-Noble, then I told the staff and the X-Noble suddenly knew about it or wasn't vulnerable anymore"

Granted these may just be jaded players and I hope thats the case.

Regardless it -has- planted a seed of caution when I think about plots I would like to make to try to involve other players. Even on an RPT basis.

But I still send in my reports and try to give it a fresh try.

Quote from: Bogre on September 15, 2010, 05:35:36 PM
I think a big problem with player-driven is that it limits plot involvement to a relatively few number of characters, since a lot of characters die before they get to the point of "okay, now lets start this plot."

And while player driven plots can involve those less-ancient characters, it essentially is relying on the older characters to start them (who may not be inclined to do so for whatever IC reasons.)

I agree with this sentiment.  Starting plots generally requires old, skilled PC's to fire up.  At least any plot above some amateur hour stunt.  This is because older PC's have the coded skill to pull off some things new PC's would never be able to even dream of, and also because they have hundreds of hours worth of PC contacts and friends to draw upon to make things happen.  By that time in a PC's life, they have baggage of some kind.  Friends, family, an entire clan relying on them...etc.  Unless there's a very compelling reason, there is not much driving these PC's to start big awesome plotlines.  In the past when I played Armageddon and staff drove the plots, they added that "very compelling reason" to act into the equation.  

For instance, I played a clanned secret magicker years ago.  Things were getting dull, it was clear the staff wanted a certain thing to happen within the clan, so they put a steel dagger to his throat (literally) and said welcome to our special operations branch.  Would my PC have had any IC reason to go that direction?  Nope, no way.  Did I love that it happened, of course I did!   I didn't get a ton of direction after my induction into the more special operations side of things, but it was clear my role was supposed to change, so I did more risky/adventurous/plot developing things.  In short, a small amount of imm "nudging" or outright shoving can go a very long way in making PC driven plots.

In a player-driven atmosphere, I think some consideration has to be given to how staff should influence (or not) the shape a plot is taking. I had a discouraging experience, a few months after the policy change, when my sponsored character had been putting work into a plot over an extended period of time. She was the one guiding the efforts and running things, as far as that plot went. It was not intentional, but basically a clan staff decision (bringing in a brand new sponsored role to speed things along) ended up vastly diminishing, really all but eliminating, my character's role in the ongoing plot. I'm not upset about it anymore, and I know the clan staff (who overall I enjoyed working with) didn't foresee the results of their decision. But it still felt like this form of staff influence over the plot was the thing that soured that particular experience for me.

Before the Policy Change:

Writing clan reports are often short, nothing really goes pass one page. If staff is interested in knowing more, I get a fun NPC interaction. Sure, plots are imm driven, but know what? No paper work. I can just get on the ride and do stuffs. No pressure at all. If there is something I can't do in one clan, I'll go find a clan and imm who will not mind giving me a hand.

After the Policy Change:

I guess I can do whatever I wanted, except the things staffs say are not very constructive for the player base, and but then I get suggestions in other directions. If I want to do anything, include it in a report. If I meet anyone, include it in a report. If I want to start a conflict with another clan, include it in a report. If I even THINK of pk, include it in a report, and CC to the other clans. If I THINK of anything at all, include it a report.

On plots. This is where I really begin to appreciate staffs' workload. Have you any idea how much paperwork is involved? Just a vague example:

Month 1 - Super exciting Plot started! Spanning multi-clans! Fun! Joy! Adventure! Report in, approved, ready to go.

Month 2 - Old people die/stored/whatever. New people came in. Report writing, modified plans. Plot will go on.

Month 3 - Getting somewhere! More reports on progress. Coordination hell. But Plot is breathing and crawling.

Month 4 - You know what? I don't even want to hear I was ever involved in this Plot, and don't you ever dare try to nudge me towards the Plot. I don't care you are a PC/staff/Tek himself. Stab Plot repeatedly until it stops moving.

Month 5 - Consider the idea of storage so that I can get away from the rotting body of the Plot.

Some days, I seriously contemplate not logging on for a week just so I can skip the report writing for that week. I feel less inclined to want to do plots, pks, conflicts, or adventures just so I can get out of writing that Character Report.

Is it just my imagination, or the rate of sponsored PC storage has gone up?

This player driven policy has given me a new perspective on matters, and a renewed appreciation for the work staff do. I don't mind getting 9 Nos for every 10 ideas I ask about, if it means I will end up with less report writing. I want everyone to enjoy the game and have fun, but I don't want to feel responsible for others' fun.

I feel we have gone completely from a command economy to a free market. Perhaps a little bit more of a balance would be great.

Quote from: Shabago on September 15, 2010, 03:50:44 PM
Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

...

I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Shabago, I don't think I ever played in any of your clans while you were on staff, but now I wish I had.  You just became my favorite ex-staffer!

I dislike the new policy, and would like to see more staff-driven stuff.  This has nothing at all to do with a lack of ambition on my, or the playerbase's part, so please, please, please don't feed me the "be the change you want to see" line.  The staff have both the tools and the long-range vision for the game needed to drive some of these things that, by design, the players lack.  Given that, why should players be expected to be able to step up and fill the void the staff left?

The new policy hasn't done anything helpful to the playerbase that I've seen, though it's completely possible I've missed it.  (I hope it has been hugely beneficial on the staff side, but I can't speak to that.)  Before, you had staff-driven plots, and player-driven plots, and player-driven plots spun off of staff-driven plots.  Now we just have player-driven plots.  It's as if the staff closed Allanak for play in order to focus on Tuluk, which would be okay if Tuluk became an awesome place to play, but it still feels like same-old-Tuluk.

At the same time, there has been a trend toward tying the hands of the playerbase, which is the opposite of what should be happening.  People like to point back 5, 10, 15 years ago, to some influential PC and say, "Look!  Look!  See what's possible?" without accounting for the climate of the time.  I'm not trying to diminish those players' accomplishments, but the fact is that things were much looser back then than they are now.  It's not impossible to create an influential PC today, but I do think the bar has been set a lot higher -- and that's a double-edged sword.  PC's behave more realistically, and players are more responsible, but you're less likely to find people willing to step outside the rank and file, or overpowered PCs (in terms of time:skill) that are willing to do crazy stuff just for shits and giggles which, like it or not, generate interest.

If the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

-Let players recruit OOC, both for family members as well as general clan members.  Yes, it's kind of stupid and there's potential for abuse, but shit gets done when you work with people you can trust and rely on.

-Grant clanned PCs much more autonomy and authority to run their own clans.

-Let the indies get away with stupid stuff.  If Amos and Malik can spamcraft their way to millions of 'sid, let them build a wagon without going through 10 RL-months worth of hoops.

-Make the noble houses more appealing.  Pay noble clan members much, much more, and give them discounts on items, and make the law a little flexible in their favor.

-Bump the clan caps up a notch.  If House Kadius becomes a massive blob that consumes all PCs before it... so be it.  They must be doing something right in order to attract that many players.

-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

-Randomly put interesting items into the game, in the hands of low-level people, if possible.  It doesn't have to be the Cursed Sword of Steinal or anything.  A horse, a pet quirri, or an ancient but useless artifact will all work nicely to spur interest and intrigue.

-Slightly off-topic, but put an end to the food/water shortage in Allanak.  A single meal has been the price of a commoner's yearly wage for years now, and that's kind of silly.  Enough of the population should have died off or fled to other places now that there should be a sustainable equilibrium.  Once the shortage is over, lower the cost of living in Allanak, and make mining/salting less profitable.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 07:10:48 PM
The new policy hasn't done anything helpful to the playerbase that I've seen, though it's completely possible I've missed it.  (I hope it has been hugely beneficial on the staff side, but I can't speak to that.)  Before, you had staff-driven plots, and player-driven plots, and player-driven plots spun off of staff-driven plots.  Now we just have player-driven plots.

Staff-driven plots still happen. E.g.: That big black-moon thing in December last year. That was after the policy change. But, creating and running new staff-driven plots for the playerbase is now not the plotting priority.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 07:10:48 PMIf the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

Most of what's on your list is simply not going to happen because the staff has a responsibility to balance the game, prevent abuse, and enforce IC reality. Pretty much everything you suggested goes against that. Plots are not a higher good than balance, fairness, and reality; and especially not when balance, fairness, and reality do not have to be thrown out in order for plots to happen.

I tried to read everything that was written today, while pretending to be working. Except I actually was, so I may say things already said and not properly credit the person who said them. Apologies.

Here is what I loved about Imm (staff now) run plots:
There was an excitement that started in one place, and spread and trickled down until much of the game was involved, even if not directly. And forces built and began to encompass the world, and eventually became an HRPT because it became so big it had to climax.

I think in many ways the new direction is wonderful. I like that more is in player hands. I just wonder if it has to be all or nothing. Couldn't we have the family meal? One from column A and two from column B?

Here are some proposals, that may not work. Maybe something will stick though:
What if there were one or two staff run world plots a year?
What if the staff broke the year up into pieces and watched the player run plots and adopted whichever was furtherest along and made that the imm run plot?
Or what if they started the plot but left the end open ended and used however things ended for a jumping off place for the next one?
I would like to lobby for plots, player or staff generated. Maybe staff could generate plots just when things languish.

I'm being selfish. I like world changing moments that define each era. So, I want to be sure they'll be there.

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 15, 2010, 05:18:28 PM
Staff might be able to give players whose PCs are in positions to start plots ideas on what they could do. In that sense they wouldn't be creating plots for players, but giving PCs goals to accomplish following whichever path they desire. To use a random example, staff could animate a higher-up to approach a House Nenyuk Agent PC and instruct them to build a new apartment building. Now that player has to get creative and figure out on their own how to go about that. After the PC goes through all the IC hoops, the apartment gets added in, and hopefully the PC will have some ideas about what else he can do without a nudge from staff next time. In essence, the role of staff here was primarily to throw the bone (they also changed the area to accommodate the apartment building, but they would have done this if the player though of the plot himself).

If they don't already, staff might also consider rewarding PCs that complete plots or a series of plots, if some kind of reward is warranted. Maybe in the previous example, the Nenyuk higher-up gives 10% of all the rent earned from that apartment to the PC Agent. Now not only is the PC getting more money which he can use for more plots, he is also encouraged to start a new plot: to encourage others to rent in the new apartment building.

Rewards that lead into plots are the best kind of reward. Instead of giving a noble a silver necklace for finishing an important plot, give her a chunk of raw silver the House seniors had on hand, and an invitation to go find someone to forge it into something nice. Money (especially a steady flow of it, which should be easy to give with the relatively new payday code) greases the wheels of some plots. Promotions open up more plots to promoted PCs since they gain more authority.

As to the point on conflict, I think a reasonable compromise between "starting a new clan/clans" (which requires a lot of staff work) and the laissez-faire "let players do it themselves" (which can be daunting or impossible as Goulet said) is sponsoring roles for the sole purpose of causing conflicts (that is not to say the current sponsored roles usually offered don't cause conflicts - they can, and should). Staff could choose players that have demonstrably handled certain types of conflicts well and set them up as raiders, dissenters against certain cities, deserters of certain clans, "terrorists", and worse. In this way, staff leave the conflicts to players, their sole role being dropping the conflict-starters into the game. In essence they are starting plots in this way, but the framework they will come up with will be very bare-bones. They could post on Staff Announcements asking for a few raiders, without being more specific, and give players the task of using their background to describe the PC's stomping grounds, methods, etc. It is up to the players on both sides of the conflict to decide how to proceed.

I liked these ideas.

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on September 15, 2010, 05:31:25 PM
I'd like the Staff to take more of the reins.

Players, or the majority of us, are relatively content to live out our PC's small chunk of life. Not many contribute towards 'the big goal'. The way I see it, the playerbase is a slow-trotting cow. Sometimes, when not motivated, we are more than content to stop and chew on our patch of grass - And that's the end of it. Like a herder or Cowboy, sometimes we need to get poked and prodded back into action.

I know alot of players just WAITING for the chance to be the Hero. The Chance to help keep the ball rolling but I'm more comfortable when the staff develops the ball to be pushed.

The Staff see where they want to go, where they want to see the world of Zalanthas change - We the players are the tools, the implements of change. The world doesn't revolve solely around us.

I also thought this was interesting, and for me, at least, true. I'm a cow. Sad but true.

Overall, I didnt notice much problem with starting plots when I was leading a clan. It 'can' be disheartening when you write a whole shitton of text of a very busy week, get a one liner response and then two weeks later, the same imm who responded shows clear signs that he's not aware of half of a report you wrote. But I just write it off to an immense paperwork load.

Also makes me feel all fuzzy at heart, when I just totally ignore Imms as an independant, and then get asked to report in more, because my plots are beginning to affect too many people.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 07:26:40 PM

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 07:10:48 PMIf the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

Most of what's on your list is simply not going to happen because the staff has a responsibility to balance the game, prevent abuse, and enforce IC reality. Pretty much everything you suggested goes against that. Plots are not a higher good than balance, fairness, and reality; and especially not when balance, fairness, and reality do not have to be thrown out in order for plots to happen.

I agree, most of what I suggested would tilt things in the favor of players that are out doing big things, but I disagree that that's a bad thing.  That's the way video games work.

If the focus is now on player-driven stuff, then there should be some recognition that, for players, doing things is tedious, nerve-wracking, beloved-character-risking work, and so there should be some encouragement to undertake things.  I think the way to do that is to make "doing things" the path of least resistance, but I welcome other ideas if anyone else has any. 

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 07:10:48 PM
-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

Give the 'byn a stable then. If you need to take three people out that's already sixty coins so profit 240. That'd also be six shares. So thats fourty coins to risk your life for the troopers along. Yeah fourty coins won't buy shit. Pretty pathetic and not going to keep ANYONE in the 'byn. Three hundred is a fucking bare minimum.

I haven't played ArmageddonMUD since my last character died in April.

I tried to get a few rooms changed in the area where I played, and after sitting on the request for two months I forgot about it.

Some of the things I wanted changed were rooms.  Why did I want them changed?  Because I thought that it would help create new ideas and new areas of game play, if certain rooms had an additional exit or if the room description was changed slightly.  It would allow some people to create their own little plots, if things were slightly different.

One example was a bar that had the main description something to the effect of, "People are seen about here cleaning up."  That room description has not been changed in about 2 real life years.  I asked to have it updated, and wanted to add more to the room description, so I went to Kadius and asked them for a door.  After a month, Kadius' PC came up to me and gave me a bunch of logs and OOC Pretend it's a door.

I put the logs in the back room of the area and they are PROBABLY STILL THERE SINCE JANUARY.

I asked around if I wanted to get a new drink item added to a bar.    I wanted to have something implemented that would add more character to that specific area of the game.  






examples:

Immortal:
Probably not going to see any of the building done.  I'll look at a few things, but right now new building is still pretty much a no.

Immortal:
You put forth some very interesting and true points, Aeron. Let me talk this over with OTHER IMMORTAL next week before I give you a solid yay/nay.





I don't know what to do, to get the things I want accomplished, when the things I want accomplished require an update to room descriptions / new items created / new npcs.

There's really a lot of thoughts and tangents on this thread that it's hard for me to keep up with them all... That said, I thought I'd give a summary of how I feel the current player-run plots go in hand versus staff-run plots, and why they do and/or don't work. The how seems to have been mentioned a couple of times in prior posts, so I won't mention that here. (edited: bolded things to make it easier to seperate the topics from the rest)

I think the best illustration that I can use for this is the process required to write and develop stories. You can think of staff as the author(s) of the book, with the book being Zalanthas, and the players and NPCs being the characters in the story. While we as players have a lot of power to bring Player Characters to life, and a great deal of control over our individual characters, we're still bound within the environment and rules set for the book. It's the authors who have the tools available to allow things to run from start to finish. Authors are able to step back and see the big picture, have the tools to be able to make things happen, and insight/knowledge to keep things within the bounds set for that environment. As a character within that book however, players are limited to only the specific area of influence that their character is capable of. When many characters come together, of course big things are possible, but never as drastic or with the potential that the actual author can have/wield.

Another way to possibly think about things is that player-driven plots begin from the bottom, and must work upward. With the exception (somewhat) of staff-sponsored roles, all PCs start from the bottom, in skill, but also in game history to some extent. Even templars, nobles, and GMH family members begin at the bottom of their rung, and it's -impossible-, simply due to the possibility of abuse, for them to ever become Heads of their House, or a Black Robe, or even (gasp) a sorceror-king. It's these BIG players that are capable of driving plots in every aspect, from the top down, and without staff to animate and bring these figures into the picture, it's like watching a chicken running around without its head. It might -look- like it's alive, but it'll eventually flop dead.

Another image that comes to mind is like ants (players) trying to move a loaf of bread (a plot). Ants can lift a very huge amount compared to their mass, but it just doesn't compare to a human picking up the loaf from the ground and moving it around. Another situation using the same model is that while ants can carry pieces of a loaf in crumb sizes, it's never quite as large a possible impact as simply moving the entire loaf together.

Staff-driven plots, on the other hand, work from the top down (generally). The disadvantage in the pure staff-driven plot is that players might feel like they don't have -enough- control of things. But when there's structure, with a large degree of freedom of action built in, I think that's a model that both players and staff can be able to work with, and quite possibly what (I think) the staff might originally have intended with the changes to plot focus, but just simply haven't been able to implement as well, or get the players to "get it".

While I can understand the staff's point of wanting a hands-off approach to plots for the most part, I still believe it's necessary that they be involved in some aspects to provide the bigger picture when players attempt to work with plots. Last illustration, I swear, but it simply gets my point across much better. Let players be able to throw the pebbles into a pond and make waves, but they can't do that without the stones provided for them from the staff. How big of a wave players can make also depends on how big of a stone the staff give them.

Hope I've stated all this clear enough.

These are the observations and suggestions I have, both from player a PC leader myself, and from talking to other people playing PC leaders.  The frustrations seem to be pretty uniform across the board.  I've tried not to make this about any one PC's issues.

This post is from the perspective of someone who is moderately new (by which I mean hasn't been playing the game for 5-20 years) but who wants to play a leader.  This isn't accusatory toward any party or parties; I'm really trying to explain what I think are the defects in the system so that maybe some of them can be fixed, leading to a less frustrating leadership experience for everyone involved.

This discussion involves a PC leader, who probably feels they are expected to "get things done"--not even an indepenent who is trying to get things done.

Issue One.  The PC leader is given very little idea of what they should be doing, or what they should consider to be realistically attainable.

Even though the PC has been in Y House for all of their life, and would have been watching the other members of Y House doing their thing at all levels of leadership, there is nowhere a PC leader has access to even a list of examples of things they would have seen of things that members of their own House have done.  In real life when I think of my career goals, I look around myself at what other successful people in my field have done, and at least have a sense of what I should be doing.  I had no sense of what my PC leader should be doing, only the vague sense that I was around to "make stuff happen".  What stuff?  Who knows.  If it is never detailed to my PC what was expected of her, she's very likely going to have unrealistic expectations...

...the player may even include goals in their character application.  Because their application has been accepted, the player probably has the expectation that these are realistic and attainable goals, if they work on them hard enough and long enough.  This may or may not be the case--but if it isn't the case, they almost definitely aren't told that.  They enter the role with the expectation that they are going to do X.  In the first report they give, detailing their tentative plans for X, they are then told "Your superiors are uninterested in this at this time."  This sets the player up for immediate disappointment.  It would be more logical to just straight up tell the player on accepting their application that X is probably an unreasonable goal and is not likely to ever happen, and THEN let the player decide if they really want to play in the role, when perhaps they built their entire character on a faulty premise... instead of letting them get excited about it, and into the game... only to have their legs chopped out from under them, leading to a frustrating leader experience.  For instance, it makes sense that if the PC's eventual goal is to start a War with Mars, and PC's superiors are never going to go for the War with Mars concept, the PC has already brought this idea up to their superiors and had it shot down.  It'd be humane to save the player some pain there.

Issue Two.  The PC leader is low-ranking in comparison to the overall structure of Y House, can always be told "no" but is probably not told why, and has no recourse to try and get a "yes" through alternate political means.  Also, a "no" feels like an OOC dictum, not an IC one.

Because you have no idea what's expected of you, and no basis from which to judge what realistic goals are, it's logical to default to thinking "Aha!  Well, such and such PC did this other thing.  So how about I try to do something similar..." Right up until you get told no. 

This is compounded by the next point--which seems to be a very common complaint--when getting told no on a project, a PC will not be told why.  Or if they are told why, it is only in the most general terms.  When I'm told no in real life, my immediate response is to ask why (in the rare instance the reason isn't already given).  Usually you only get a very blanket response, something like "The House has decided not to pursue this at this time."  You know that anyone is going to want to know why, so why wait for them to have to turn around and ASK why?  I propose adding a very simple clause, starting with the word 'because,' to any instance where a player is told no on an idea.  For instance "because there are political pressures against it."  Not only does it answer the player's burning question, but it gives them something new to figure out--what political pressures?  Or even "because we feel this would be unbalancing to the game/unrealistic at this time," or "because we do not have the time/wherewithal to code/manpower to support this idea at this time."  The vast majority of us understand you're volunteering, that time and resources are limited, that balance is a strong consideration, and so on.  If when the decision was an OOC one, you were told so, then when the decisions are IC ones, you trust that there is some IC reason why you aren't capable of doing something--and can maybe initiate some scheming to get around it, instead of feeling like you've been given an oblique OOC "not going to happen--buzz off."

Issue Three.  Now that you've been told "no" on all of your ideas, you are out of ideas for projects.  You have no one to go to for advice.  You have no opportunity to change the situation.

Additionally, if "The House is not interested in X at this time, but we'd be willing to support you in realistically playing out the consequences of trying to get around this dictum," is what's meant by "The House is not interested in X at this time," I really wish that's what would be said.  As it stands, because in the majority of instances you do not receive an IC reason from staff as to why you're not allowed to do something, the phrase "The House is not interested in X at this time," without further elaboration, comes across as an OOC communication--buzz off, we aren't going to support you in this.  This is also very highly discouraging and a point of frustration.

PCs should be able to ask their PC leaders for advice and guidance.  If something just isn't working, and I don't know where it's going wrong, I'm going to turn to someone with a little more experience and offload the scenario to ask for advice.  The advice could be right or wrong, but it's always something you're going to be able to find.  Often, I feel like if I'm stuck and I ask the staff what I need to do, the answer is "Well, what do you think you need to do?"  If I knew, I wouldn't be asking.  Some players just aren't going to know how to pick up something and run with it.  I don't think it would make the game any less "player driven" to have an NPC give a PC leader advice about how to go about what they're floundering around and obviously getting severely frustrated trying to accomplish.  The player probably just doesn't know what tools are available to them, even though it might be very IC for them to know that.

Finally, you are not given the opportunity to manipulate your NPC leaders in ways which would be realistic to the type of heirarchical setting the current game is placed in.  Chances are your House Head doesn't give a rat's ass what your low ranking PC leader is doing.  You're probably getting told "no" by some form of middle management.  In real life, you might go to a different person and see what they think about your project.  You might quietly garner support among your peers and put some pressure on the upper levels to conform to your point of view.  If it really is the highest person telling you no, you might try to have them assassinated to get a more receptive person in there.  These are all things that it doesn't feel like you can do to your NPC leadership.

Result.  The PC leader feels as though they are engaged in a constant guessing game with the staff, and only gets more and more frustrated.

The meaning of "player driven" is lost in the process.  The player instead feels like they are engaged in a constant guessing-game with the staff, in the nature of "I'll suggest this," "No," "So how about this?" "No," "Well why don't you just tell me what you want?"  Even when I had the drive and energy to try to get things accomplished, things which I felt would get people around me motivated and involved and having fun, it seemed like the process of getting things done was an incomprehensible guessing game with no answers to any questions being asked. 

Personal view.

I think a huge problem with "player driven" is that anything that is going to involve more than a very small quantity of PCs on anything more than a very personal level is eventually going to require staff support.  Even for the very, very small things I wanted to get done with a leader PC, the process of getting staff support was an abyssal pit of frustration, even when the staffers I was working with directly were personally awesome and responsive.  As a result, I have no more energy to want to try to navigate anything that may possibly even require staff support.  This isn't because I don't like the staff, or because I don't think they mean well (and in fact, I think they do a pretty awesome job of running the game).  But I have simply had no positive experience with getting anything staff supported, and received no feedback about why my attempts were not working or did not work.  As a result, anything that I "player drive" will be tiny personal plots that I have already thought through and know that I do not need staff support on any aspect.  I can't feel that my experiences have been isolated (as illustrated elsewhere in this thread, particularly Mansa's post above), and I think feelings like mine are part of the reason you don't see "big plots" which are "player driven."

___________________

Synopsis of suggestions to cut down on player frustration with "player driven" leadership roles--

1. Give newly incoming leaders some idea of what is expected of their role, especially when this may not be OOCly obvious, or the player is newer.
2. Give newly incoming leaders some idea of what is possible in their role, potentially through a list of IC events or rumors.
3. Straight up tell the player when goals they have listed in a character application are not likely to be attainable, especially when this goal is central to the application, before they apply the PC.
4. Be more forthcoming with reasons why the player is being told "no" on a project, and delineate between an IC reason (which may be ICly steered around) and an OOC reason (which is not).
5. Allow leader PCs to ask for reasonable advice (good or bad) when they are stuck on obtaining a goal.
6. Prompt leader PCs who are floundering and frustrated with reasonable advice (good or bad).
7. Make it easier to attain relatively tiny game changes, especially ones that would require very little staff work, but would leave players feeling like they have "accomplished" something their character spent a lot of time and effort on.

I'm going to comment on the raider clan comments.

Remember, Blackmoon was started by players. They were closed(destroyed) for good reason at the time, but it is up to staff to make that public, I cannot remember if they did at the time.

I think enough of you are talking about an open raiding clan to actually make a go at starting one.

Make a PC aimed at it, if they live long enough, begin recruiting, set up shop somewhere and have at it.

But something that is important is docs, write up docs that give the prospective clan rules and make them a game asset.
A raiding clan that kills everybody and has no rules of conduct will never be coded, hell it will never last long enough to matter.

Realize that it will not be easy, and not even because of staff. You will have to figure out a way to deal with existing raiding clans and other clans that have stakes in the area you want to set up shop or do business.

But in the end, if you come up with good docs and manage to keep the clan alive and show they are an asset to the game world, I bet staff would be more then happy to put in a bit of work in coding them.

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 08:40:56 PM

Issue One.  The PC leader is given very little idea of what they should be doing, or what they should consider to be realistically attainable.

I believe that this issue could be alleviated with the addition of 'What you would know' as a PC  leader, well beyond the history of the beginnings of the clan, as seems to be standard. The organization and long faded accomplishments of the House/Organization aside, a player needs to have some idea of what is/ has been happening around them, and how it effects the stated clan. Give me a listing of current situations surrounding the organization, and you can essentially keep how the gardens in the backyard got started, because the fluff about the gardens isn't going to give me some idea of what to do with my character and get me started on my feet. After this list, yes – I can deal with the rest, the gaining contacts, gathering information, etc, but clans aren't so god-damned blind and secluded that they wouldn't have at least some general direction to point characters towards, just to give them a starting push. Sorry, if that sounds bitter, but I believe it'd greatly assist in reducing the "Hi I am Lord <Storedinaweek>" situations, and providing direction.

For example : From a staff perspective if you wish to make this realistic, gather a list of present topics of interest and randomly choose a few to give to a said noble, then give a few more to another leader who just got accepted, etc. They can be two nobles in the same clan who know different things, or might even have misinformation pitting them against each other. At least they'll be busy. These PCs aren't all kept in the same room until they are activated by the players, they had a life, and in that life, they would have most likely heard different rumors and gained different perspectives.

My greatest disappointment when I had a Templar years ago was that I started knowing nothing more about the Templarate than I knew before I was accepted. With the amount of expectations from the staff, I believe that's simply unrealistic standards.

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 08:40:56 PM
Issue Two.  The PC leader is low-ranking in comparison to the overall structure of Y House, can always be told "no" but is probably not told why, and has no recourse to try and get a "yes" through alternate political means.  Also, a "no" feels like an OOC dictum, not an IC one.

Sometimes "No" is an OOC dictum, and if it isn't, then my suggestion? React accordingly. Feel stifled by your NPC overseer? Think your boss has out-lived his purpose and want to work for a different npc boss instead? Do something. If you're going to store over it anyway, then at least go down starting conflict if you couldn't previously. Take them out, manipulate them, black-mail them. Just because your NPC is run by an immortal doesn't mean that the character is immortal, kill them. Get your underlings involved. Sure, you may get IC punishment, if you fail, but it sounds like a pretty pathetic situation to begin with. The point isn't to go around killing your NPC superiors; it's more about starting to treat them like actual pcs rather than NPCs. You can respect them, as your boss, but their word isn't God.

The policy at present is that there is no place for higher-ranked PCs in the game. There will be no Red-Robed, Senior Ladies, etc. It's a glass ceiling, but it's there in place to bring a balance. Therefore, essentially you're in that particular position to lead those beneath you and act as your character would, despite who tells you what. But because you can't overthrow Tek doesn't mean you can't gain power within the slow building attempts to do so. People have stupid, unrealistic dreams all the time. The only difference is that there is no omnipresent being telling them, "You can't do that." So, I suppose my question is, given that: Just because you're told no, why are you stopping?

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 08:40:56 PM
Issue Three.  Now that you've been told "no" on all of your ideas, you are out of ideas for projects.  You have no one to go to for advice.  You have no opportunity to change the situation.
In real life, you might go to a different person and see what they think about your project.  You might quietly garner support among your peers and put some pressure on the upper levels to conform to your point of view.  If it really is the highest person telling you no, you might try to have them assassinated to get a more receptive person in there.  These are all things that it doesn't feel like you can do to your NPC leadership.

I am surprised this hasn't worked, if you actually tried this. I've already touched on this but: using your own example – why don't you go to your other boss? You can send the Imm's a letter to send to the individual (if they can read/write) or otherwise pass information to the Imms. This is actually one of the better aspects of the present system, actually. It takes hell of a lot of less time to get a simple e-mail rather than wasting a day waiting for Lady Who-gives-a-fuck to show up to spit in your face and tell you what a horrible job you're doing. NPCs don't like each other anymore than PCs do – and I believe the staff does a good job at representing this, given the wide variety of replies I've received from my own letters in the past.

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 08:40:56 PM
Result.  The PC leader feels as though they are engaged in a constant guessing game with the staff, and only gets more and more frustrated.

You are. I don't really have anything to counter that. The staff isn't there to play the game for you. There are at times when it absolutely feels that you're the only living representative of an organization which seems entirely separate from you. You're essentially flying solo, and are given the task of babysitting those beneath you and dealing with an endless loop of soap-opera antics. But, no one is going to change that for you – So, you keep at the plots, until one works, or you're passionate enough to force it to work, and you keep those beneath you active, because if you're not plotting, someone else is, and maybe you can steal one of their ideas.

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 08:40:56 PM
Personal view.

Here's mine: I've rewritten this three or four times now, and something seems to come out right. Anyway, I changed the game. It took roughly two and a half OOC years, and my changes may or may not have been lasting, but I changed it. At times, I wouldn't give it up for anything in the world, and at others I felt like I had taken on nothing more than a second job. Leadership roles are difficult – and while it used to be that an Imm might hold your hand over it, I think there's something to be said over developing our own ideas. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Imm-driven plots I had been involved in, but I also feel a sense of achievement knowing that something that I had striven towards ended up working and that for however long, those changes mattered. I don't think I would've felt the same if I had been hand-fed the situation, regardless of the additional frustrations that it involved.  I won't say that I haven't been avoiding leadership roles since my experiences, because I have.

Despite this, my advice towards any seeking a leadership role would be to keep in constant communication with the staff. If they won't flat-out assist you, then at least they can stand still long enough to bounce ideas off of. You might not always get replies, but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone gave you that 'flat-out no', either. Keep in contact with the NPCs of your organization. The staff might not have opinions, but maybe the NPCs do. Treat them like you would those surrounding you, make friends, enemies – interaction is what drives every single role in this game, whether you're out in the wilderness or jammed in a crowded tavern. Use your employees. I can't tell you how many times small plots have come up by simply getting a report, and having a simple conversation. Spy, cheat, steal, black-mail, betray, and kill – Whatever you have to do, as long as the role is fun for you, it'll bleed over to others. Once you stop, they'll stop, and that's never good for anyone. Wish I could put my own experience into better words, but like any other role it's an up and down of victory, defeat and everything in between, I guess the crucial part is using that to continue the story.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 05:56:04 PM
I like the intent of your idea, but I'm going to counteroffer to your suggestion: As a part of the indies/tribals team, that means I help handle Unclanned staff. Most of your "conflict starter" ideas would fall into the Unclanned area. If a player is interested in playing this type of role, I would encourage him/her to send in a request to Unclanned staff to discuss realistic IC vectors for conflict and how they can go about achieving those conflicts 100% in game, 100% player-driven. No one needs to wait around for staff permission or support to start conflict, but if you want to do it long-term or large-scale, you will probably want to be in communication with the staff about that. That is to say: I'm not going to give you a private lair or boost your skills, but I will do my best to guide you just like any of my clan members. (Because you are, if you're Unclanned.)

It is encouraging to know that the staff cares about unclanned characters; this has given me more incentive to submit reports with the same manner of consistency that I did with my clanned characters from here on in.  So, thank you for that!

I understand that you were replying to Cutthroat, but I wanted to elaborate on my earlier thought by saying that I, personally, am not interested in playing an antagonistic character (or "conflict starter", as you put it), but I feel that having such characters around would create more opportunities for plots.  At present, most (but not all) of the game's conflict is created by the environment rather than other players, and it's hard to generate plots around that premise alone.  Certainly there are rivalries and people who just plain dislike each other, but there are few clearly defined "enemies" for characters to rally against for larger plot-like things.  Most people don't want to play such roles because there is little support (there are few, if any, clans that encourage antagonistic characters), it's difficult to recruit without getting smited, and usually you get smeared by a coded clan before you get anywhere.  At least, that is my impression of the situation.

And by antagonists/enemies, I don't mean "bad guys"; just people who, for one reason or another, pose a threat.  This could include anything from a band of raiders, to an organization competing for limited (coded) resources, to a bunch of sorcerers/mindbenders/elementalists/mutants/heretics who just want to establish themselves a home or settlement and be left alone by the major powers.

Since this is an open dialog between the players and the staff, however, I'd like to follow up my thoughts with a few questions:  Does the staff feel that the game could use some more conflict for the purposes of generating plots?  If so, what form(s) would you like to see it manifest (player-verus-player, etc.), and how?

I thought the no-npc boss policy means that you can't kill your boss.
Since you've only spoke to your boss through email.  the Boss doesn't exist in game.

QuoteMost of what's on your list is simply not going to happen because the staff has a responsibility to balance the game, prevent abuse, and enforce IC reality. Pretty much everything you suggested goes against that. Plots are not a higher good than balance, fairness, and reality; and especially not when balance, fairness, and reality do not have to be thrown out in order for plots to happen.

This is a good example of what I discussed in my initial post. I don't mean to single you out at all, Talia, as I know it's the over-all policy, but lets take a look at this a bit more closely.

QuoteLet players recruit OOC, both for family members as well as general clan members.  Yes, it's kind of stupid and there's potential for abuse, but shit gets done when you work with people you can trust and rely on.

Lets be honest here. This already happens due to the various OOC groups. If Player A wants to play with player B, they're likely going to by a "Hey buddy, I'm playing in Oash. Come join me and we'll totally kick some arse." Via PM or various messagers.

Quote-Grant clanned PCs much more autonomy and authority to run their own clans.

This SHOULD be allowed, at least to an extent. If the hands-off means no more boss animations, who the heck is steering? When did we leave the RP intense style of game to OOC emails? IMO, this just leaves a massive, empty void in the game-world that needs filling. Solution? If there is a PC in Clan X that has obtained a rank to order something to happen, it should happen. I sincerely doubt that Lord Fancypants is going to order the whole of his house to jump into the silt just because he can. Aren't sponsored roles given to players that have shown they can be trusted with that power? Promotions to underlings that have demonstrated they can be trusted with that responsibility?

Quote-Let the indies get away with stupid stuff.  If Amos and Malik can spamcraft their way to millions of 'sid, let them build a wagon without going through 10 RL-months worth of hoops.

Heh. I rather dislike the use of "spamcraft" in here, but you know what? People who work for years and years IC, save every single sid to have something made, it should be made. Maybe make it like the special app process. Limit it to two or three special items per RL year or two. It goes without saying this would include the "legwork" from the PC(s) in getting material X Y Z, paying off the officals (if necessary) to say sure, giver and so on. If that PC dies, and another group of PCs had similiar undertakings, recycle it. If not, it falls into disrepair and falls apart (purged). No mess, no clutter. Supply and demand.

Quote-Make the noble houses more appealing.  Pay noble clan members much, much more, and give them discounts on items, and make the law a little flexible in their favor.

I agree this won't work, because (and it's been talked to death) that the economy in general is broken in numerous ways and would take an ungodly undertaking to fix. 2.0? Likely a whole lot better with the fresh slate when it comes. However, I imagine it IS possible to make clans more appealing through incentives, bonuses and political favor.

Quote-Bump the clan caps up a notch.  If House Kadius becomes a massive blob that consumes all PCs before it... so be it.  They must be doing something right in order to attract that many players.

A bump I could entertain, but having the whole of the PB in a general area in one clan would get very stale, very quick with lack of outside conflict and so on.

Quote-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

Again, there could be a compromise here. What if the Byn had a *gasp* wagon? And charged fifty to a hundred sids per head to go and see X location, go to Y city. Affordable for each PC and the Byn still gets an awesome haul by shoving ten of them into the wagon. Only 5 PCs want to go/pay? Supply and demand, pay 75 to 150 instead. Less then three PCs? Trip cancelled and rebooked when more have a need. That would be IC.

Quote-Randomly put interesting items into the game, in the hands of low-level people, if possible.  It doesn't have to be the Cursed Sword of Steinal or anything.  A horse, a pet quirri, or an ancient but useless artifact will all work nicely to spur interest and intrigue.

Also doable.

Now, yes I realise oldkanks points were just as examples or tongue-in-cheek, and for the most part, so were my responses to them, but hopefully my point is clear. Player-driven plots/stories just aren't there. There are 'Staff-allowed, player-driven plots'. That is NOT hands off in any way that I know of. Furthermore, the last portion of Talia's post, from the point of 'Plots are not a higher good then balance' through to the end...

Who decides what is "fair" or "ICly realistic"? Top tier staff. Not the players, nor lower tier staff. So, instead of getting a flat "No" (Maybe with an explanation why as well), perhaps there should be a movement towards "This could be doable, if this, this and this were modified to not upset the game balance." If those concerns/reasons are addressed, then the plot should move forward. If the player can't be arsed to put in the work, or just utterly refuses to change it, then tough beans. But, at least then it would be the PLAYERS decision in this supposed "Player-driven" plots and stories. Otherwise, I think the term "Hands-off policy" should go right on out the window because nothing gets done on any sort of larger scale without staff hands all over it.

Quote from: Shabago on September 15, 2010, 10:37:16 PM
Otherwise, I think the term "Hands-off policy" should go right on out the window because nothing gets done on any sort of larger scale without staff hands all over it.

I agree, the term "hands-off policy" should go out the window, because that's not what the policy was ever stated to be. If that's been your perception of the policy, then that's simply not correct. I have seen some players behaving as if they did believe that the policy is a "hands-off policy," and they tend to get disappointed--but you can't blame staff for that. It's a pretty gross misinterpretation of the policy.

Quote from: mansa on September 15, 2010, 10:36:39 PM
I thought the no-npc boss policy means that you can't kill your boss.
Since you've only spoke to your boss through email.  the Boss doesn't exist in game.

The NPCs are still there. You can still kill them. Again...you are misinterpreting. In this case, the misinterpretation seems to be being done for the purpose of exaggeration. You're making the policy into something it is definitely not.

*blink*

Shabago. I'm truly sorry you became a Legend. Your thoughts on this matter seem to echo mine, almost to a T.

And I do, I really -really- do understand the need for the game the way it is. However, it is from on high that all decisions are made, to the point where I feel like we're all participating in a Philip Zimbardo case study. Again, that is not meant to poke at anyone in particular, but as a player, my feeling is I am a prisoner, the staff are the guards, and because there is nobody to tell the guards no, the prisoners get the shaft.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on September 15, 2010, 10:32:51 PM
I, personally, am not interested in playing an antagonistic character (or "conflict starter", as you put it), but I feel that having such characters around would create more opportunities for plots.  At present, most (but not all) of the game's conflict is created by the environment rather than other players, and it's hard to generate plots around that premise alone.  Certainly there are rivalries and people who just plain dislike each other, but there are few clearly defined "enemies" for characters to rally against for larger plot-like things.  Most people don't want to play such roles because there is little support (there are few, if any, clans that encourage antagonistic characters), it's difficult to recruit without getting smited, and usually you get smeared by a coded clan before you get anywhere.  At least, that is my impression of the situation.

And by antagonists/enemies, I don't mean "bad guys"; just people who, for one reason or another, pose a threat.  This could include anything from a band of raiders, to an organization competing for limited (coded) resources, to a bunch of sorcerers/mindbenders/elementalists/mutants/heretics who just want to establish themselves a home or settlement and be left alone by the major powers.

And you don't have to play that type of character. Fortunately, there are players who are interested, and some of them are even doing it right now. There are some serious, interesting, well-played bad guys lurking where you just not may be seeing them...yet.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on September 15, 2010, 10:32:51 PMSince this is an open dialog between the players and the staff, however, I'd like to follow up my thoughts with a few questions:  Does the staff feel that the game could use some more conflict for the purposes of generating plots?  If so, what form(s) would you like to see it manifest (player-verus-player, etc.), and how?

I'd like to see players trying to move plots that are aimed at creating conflicts between organizations, within regions, and across the world. I know that sounds vague, but...that's what I'd like to see.

Quote from: Riev on September 15, 2010, 11:04:35 PM
it is from on high that all decisions are made, to the point where I feel like we're all participating in a Philip Zimbardo case study. Again, that is not meant to poke at anyone in particular, but as a player, my feeling is I am a prisoner, the staff are the guards, and because there is nobody to tell the guards no, the prisoners get the shaft.

I don't mean to be flippant, but how is this different from players have always felt about the game? Whether this perception is correct or incorrect (I believe it's very much not correct), players seem to always think it. I don't think that has much to do with reality; rather it's got to do with the "veil," as staggerlee described.

Quote from: Decameron on September 15, 2010, 10:30:26 PM
A bunch of stuff.

I wasn't saying that the system is completely unworkable, or that players should be "hand-fed" plot ideas--I was pointing out very common frustrations from the perspective of newish leader PCs with the "player driven" system.  Certainly, some players can eventually work around to getting some things accomplished.  But it seems like the majority store, and within a matter of months, based on how many leaders I see cycle through the positions.

I'm not certain you read anything past the underlined points.  At least, you didn't comment on any of the actual suggestions.  Sure "suck it up and try to work around it" is always advice anyone can choose to take, but it's not going to help the experience of frustration by many of the leader PCs I've talked to, which is what leads to players not being interested in starting plots which need staff support, which contributes to hamstringing the "player driven" system... which is what the whole point of my post (and the suggestions) was about.

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 11:26:45 PM

Quote from: Decameron on September 15, 2010, 10:30:26 PM
A bunch of stuff.

Bunch of other stuff.

I certainly did read your post, which is why I took the time to reply to it in the length fashion I did.  ;)

And I believe I did comment on your points, however:
- I failed to see any difficulty in e-mailing the staff for communication, generating some sort of relationship with NPCs through written-letters or gossip.
-I didn't say 'suck it up' once in the entire post. I said it was difficult. I said the staff wasn't there to play the role for you. I suggested alternatives.
-I suggested as well, that further documentation would lend assistance to your concerns about individuals starting out 'without a clue'.
-Suggested a system by which recent events (regardless of their accuracy) could be provided at random to these starting out PCs, to give them something to do.

But .. you know all that, having read the post.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:15:39 PM

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on September 15, 2010, 10:32:51 PMSince this is an open dialog between the players and the staff, however, I'd like to follow up my thoughts with a few questions:  Does the staff feel that the game could use some more conflict for the purposes of generating plots?  If so, what form(s) would you like to see it manifest (player-verus-player, etc.), and how?

I'd like to see players trying to move plots that are aimed at creating conflicts between organizations, within regions, and across the world. I know that sounds vague, but...that's what I'd like to see.

Talia, thank you for this!  (And the little Q&A you seem to be hosting!)

Your statement right here is exactly why I feel there's a need for staff involvement.

Left to their own devices, most organizations (clans) in the game sit at a very stagnant equilibrium.  Kadius doesn't need to spar with Salarr.  Tor doesn't have a reason to antagonize Oash.  Tenneshi gains little from robbing Winrothol.  There are a few antagonistic clans out there, but I think they lack the incentive/manpower/will to openly affront the other clans.  And so, you have what I see happening now:  The focus shifts from clan/bigger happenings to the characters/small happenings.  This is fine, up to a point, but bar brawls, parties, and lover's quarrels get stale pretty fast when there's nothing else in view.

Throw in a reason for conflict, however, and that picture changes dramatically.

One thing that I've never understood is -why- the imm-animations of boss-NPC's went away.

I mean, hell, I would think that would be -fun- for an Imm to do, rather than just sifting through 3 pages of back and forth emails/reports to get to the gist of whats going on. I mean you don't have to go back to the old 'everything done through in game speaking to NPC bosses' but why does it have to be all or none?

I don't know, I've tried to think of a plot from time to time and always arrive at the same place.

1. Anything new is very unlikely to be supported. Buildings, items, whatever. Until Arm 2.0.
2. "Positive" quests (e.g. find the treasure/artifact) are very unlikely to be supported. They don't fit in with the harsh atmosphere.

What's left?

3. Various plots for screwing with other PCs and groups of PCs. In the interest of balance, rather than supporting kills, the staff will probably throw a wrench or two into any plan, though.
4. Ask to have NPCs screw with your group. Fun, at times, but not sufficient in itself.

Quote from: valeria on September 15, 2010, 08:40:56 PM
Synopsis of suggestions to cut down on player frustration with "player driven" leadership roles--

1. Give newly incoming leaders some idea of what is expected of their role, especially when this may not be OOCly obvious, or the player is newer.
2. Give newly incoming leaders some idea of what is possible in their role, potentially through a list of IC events or rumors.
3. Straight up tell the player when goals they have listed in a character application are not likely to be attainable, especially when this goal is central to the application, before they apply the PC.
4. Be more forthcoming with reasons why the player is being told "no" on a project, and delineate between an IC reason (which may be ICly steered around) and an OOC reason (which is not).
5. Allow leader PCs to ask for reasonable advice (good or bad) when they are stuck on obtaining a goal.
6. Prompt leader PCs who are floundering and frustrated with reasonable advice (good or bad).
7. Make it easier to attain relatively tiny game changes, especially ones that would require very little staff work, but would leave players feeling like they have "accomplished" something their character spent a lot of time and effort on.

1 and 2. Adhira said last year, when the policy was announced, that one thing staff could/should look at doing is providing job descriptions for apped leader positions. I think this is worth pursuing, and I'll bring it up to staff again. I don't think this is the whole solution to all plot problems, but it might help newbie leaders get over the "what the hell do I do" hump and get their role-legs.

3. I think experience probably varies on whether or not leaders are told up-front that their ideas are not pursuable. I've had roles in the past where that was done. I've had roles where my ideas were largely OKed, with tweaks. I don't think I've ever had a role where I wasn't given any feedback. This is probably more about communication than policies.

4. We do try to keep IC and OOC reasons separate--I know that I have a way of doing that in my responses to clannies. Mostly I see staff doing a good job of this, but again this is probably more about communication than policies.

5 and 6. I believe we do. Looking around at the current staff, I don't believe there's a clan group that is not capable of helping out with stuckness. Sometimes, though, the answers aren't going to help much--for example, if you're dead-set on starting a war between Luir's and Steinal, and won't entertain other plot ideas, there may not be much we can suggest that will please you. The players have to work with us.

7. I'm not sure what you mean exactly. "Relatively tiny" may mean something different to you than it does to me. Adding NPCs where they are needed, changing coded clan functionality, adding a single mastercraft, those kinds of things seem "relatively tiny" to me. I think we do those things really well. Things beyond that level are not necessarily "relatively tiny" and may require a lot more work than you know. (Certainly more work than I would have guessed, when I was "just" a player.)

I'm going to have to digest a lot of this over the next few days before I comment on points made. There are a lot of posts, and right now I can't collect them all into something cohesive for me to respond to.

I do have a comment, though.

A primarily player-run system, honestly, does not work well in the overall IC environment that we have. Because of the various large governments and large organizations in the game, staff has to take a guiding hand in just about every plot, at some point, that interests characters. The reason for this is that reactions to major player choices are guided by major entities that, generally speaking, PCs do not play. Furthermore, it does not work because players will not start small plots that end small, as a common rule. They will start plots that do big things, because players want to do big things.

The only way that a primarily player-run system works well is when there are no grand, over-arching governments. In an environment more like the tribes of Armageddon, player-run works well, because most things in that environment are smaller in scale.

This is why you see more of the tribal players pleased with the way things are currently done, while the city-loving players tend to not be as happy.

A player-initiated system works best in the current overall system. That's because players come up with ideas. Staff just decides if they'll work or not, and then start making the world respond to the idea. Staff is not required to be inventive, just reactive (and hopefully inventively reactive :) ).


I do have one other comment before I get back to digesting all of this neat stuff.

There are four clans, two in each city, who are, honestly, the best equipped to have war. That's Tor and the AoD for Allanak, and Lyksae and the Legion for Tuluk. Nothing more than an staff-supported, in-house call for aggressive military action and being involved in those clans will mean automatic action over time. Throw in simple battle-points, like oasis, or a small vein of silver, or a tribe desired by either city city's slaving houses ... conflict isn't hard. Why have a huge war, when you can just have an ongoing conflict.

Battles, they call them. Battles. Wars are made up of battles.

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:15:39 PM

I'd like to see players trying to move plots that are aimed at creating conflicts between organizations, within regions, and across the world. I know that sounds vague, but...that's what I'd like to see.

One thing here is that for the past couple of years, with the big END OF THE WORLD plot, there was a significant trend for clans/PC's to band together against the forces trying to destroy them. Oashi-Tor squabbling gets pretty pointless when gith are streaming out of the sewers. And the best example was the player driven -ALLIANCE- between the north and the south. I mean, it made sense to the characters and the players at the time.

***Players won't always start big conflict just to keep things interesting, when its easier and more beneficial to be not competitive. Hell, my templar specifically aimed to keep people cohesive and actively squashed conflict between clans, because it was the most sensible thing for him ICly to do. (And not -just- because he was a 'nice' guy and a peacemaker and a hero and really wanted that he would have more warm bodies in front of the bad guys;))  


But as far as conflict goes now, I will. In fact, most of my past few characters have been specifically created with that goal in mind. Problem is, though, and here we get to the point I brought up earlier, most of those characters never really live to the point of serious plot development. I definitely created plots, and intrigue, and whatnot with those characters, but probably not long lasting, big things. And it's not just because I die really noobishly- most of them had 20+ days played over 3 IC years. And I think that probably applies to a lot of PC's- they die before they even -begin- to put the wheels turning on their big goals.

Staff intervention might not help those plots get off the ground if PC's are dying to early. But they could provide some framework for additional things to get started. Maybe my thug who plans to start a gang might never get to the point of starting it, but if Gang Boss Y, suggests PC hope-ful boss X show his talent by really pissing of Lord Templar Hardnose by abducting his aide, hell, my thug might just be needed to knock Militia Mack out of the way.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 12:04:14 AM

What's left?

Honestly? Best plots I felt came up generally out of the blue, and were completely reactive rather than planned. By this I mean that a employee came to the character and reported, "Amos was throwing around his 'sid like nothing, earlier. Seemed a little weird to me. He's only a grebber, but sure does spend a lot of time with Clan X."

So we investigate, have the employee befriend the said individual. Maybe that's not enough though, as employee A's loyalty might be compromised. Amos is a pretty charming guy, after all. So we get employee B to spy in on employee A, maybe get a little romance going on that side. We get clueless free-lancer A to set up a meeting with Amos to see what's bringing in the 'sid, arranging a meeting for bartering for (spice/sex/fiery swords of steel). The meeting ends up with free-lancer A killed by a magicker, or Amos is a mind-bender! Spy for the northern/southern Templarate! Now we know something is up, so we .. You can sort of see how this might get complicated. It might lead to nothing, but the whole trick is really taking something simple, and putting a group of people together. They'll generally create the drama for you, trust me. All you have to do is sit back and make the decisions. Whether or not they follow them, well - that's the whole fun of the plot.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 11:53:03 PM
Left to their own devices, most organizations (clans) in the game sit at a very stagnant equilibrium.  Kadius doesn't need to spar with Salarr.  Tor doesn't have a reason to antagonize Oash.  Tenneshi gains little from robbing Winrothol.  There are a few antagonistic clans out there, but I think they lack the incentive/manpower/will to openly affront the other clans.  And so, you have what I see happening now:  The focus shifts from clan/bigger happenings to the characters/small happenings.  This is fine, up to a point, but bar brawls, parties, and lover's quarrels get stale pretty fast when there's nothing else in view.

Left to their own devices, yes, this is true. I don't believe it has to be true, though. I believe that players tend to avoid conflict unless they believe they can win. But what if we abandoned thoughts of winning, and just played to have fun? There are, really, as many reasons to have conflict as you can possibly imagine. They don't even have to be good reasons, or true reasons--they can be about ancient enmities, lies your PC believes, things your PC wants, personal power, political power, sexual power, money, revenge...it's an endless list.

In short, if you're playing Bob Kadius and you want to take down Dick Salarr and his whole gang, as well as a good chunk of Salarr's widget business...there's no reason you can't try. You might not win. And...so what?

Quote from: Bogre on September 16, 2010, 12:09:53 AM
Staff intervention might not help those plots get off the ground if PC's are dying to early. But they could provide some framework for additional things to get started. Maybe my thug who plans to start a gang might never get to the point of starting it, but if Gang Boss Y, suggests PC hope-ful boss X show his talent by really pissing of Lord Templar Hardnose by abducting his aide, hell, my thug might just be needed to knock Militia Mack out of the way.

Why can't your thug decide to abduct the aide in order to impress the gang boss, on his own? That's what I'm not getting. Why do players think they need staff to tell them to do that? Aren't you just as inventive as we are?

QuoteI agree, the term "hands-off policy" should go out the window, because that's not what the policy was ever stated to be. If that's been your perception of the policy, then that's simply not correct. I have seen some players behaving as if they did believe that the policy is a "hands-off policy," and they tend to get disappointed--but you can't blame staff for that. It's a pretty gross misinterpretation of the policy.

From Adhira, when the change was announced.

QuoteStaff instead will be concentrating on facilitating the stories that players are creating. The overall goal is that gameplay happens at a level that is accessible to players, allowing them to feel a very real part of the action.

Another goal with the change is to move the focus of Storytellers from the administrative side of running clans, to the story oriented side. With a Highlord in charge of each group we hope that much of the admin work can be relieved and with dedicated HL's for each group decisions can get sign off at the team level.

The overall aim of this is to see STs out there animating every day, because they –want- to, to see plots and stories that reflect what players are interested in and want to achieve and staff supporting what you all are doing.

Huh. Here I would read the policy to mean (bolded and italics for aid) that the change was happening to have the players (it's mentioned/bolded and in italics twice above) create and run things on their own, to some extent, and the general role of the ST was to help them achieve that, because that is what the players are interested in.

Players are interested in building wagons.

Nope. Forget it.

Players are interested in larger scale wars/conflict.

Nope, not right now.

Players are interested in having new/older clans opened to bring about renewed conflict/interest.

Nah.

Players are interested in having numerous changes of all shapes and sizes just in this thread alone.

I don't think I've seen very many "We'd support that" type answers to them.


I'm not aiming to try and be sarcastic here, but maybe a revision on what it is actually suppose to mean is in order?

Hey guys, thought I'd chime in here with my apparently over-optimistic and exceptional opinions/experiences.

Just to get it out of the way, I'm a pretty happy camper. Overall, I've had very fun experiences with this game. Granted, I'm not some grizzled veteran, but I've experienced a lot this game has to offer. My most enjoyable role in the game was a sponsored, hardcore leadership role. At times it was sort of overwhelming, all the IC and OOC crap that went into "making things work" and "making things happen" (two very different things, by the way).

But holy crap, I was so glad I didn't have my hand held the entire way. In my time playing that role, I can only think of two times the staff threw a whiff of a plot at me (this isn't counting the times they "kept things real" from the vNPC/NPC standpoint), but there was absolutely no pressure. They weren't world-changing or anything, just insanely fun. At least the one in particular. Anyway, that's the sort of thing I liked. Let the PCs attempt whatever, and only throw out some MacGuffins or whatever when there's a serious lull. In my experience, that's what gets done nowadays. I know that's not the same for everyone, but there you go.

I can understand how some people may be confused by the whole "is this just an IC no, or an OOC no?" I feel like that should be something explicitly stated in staff correspondence when possible. To kind of sort of maybe touch on something Decameron said, "no" isn't necessarily an answer you have to accept. The virtual world -can- be played around with. Just try to get the mindset that you're playing with the staff. That's what works for me. I trust them not to unfairly dick me over, but maybe I'm just a sweet, gentle and trusting person to begin with? Most likely it's because I haven't had the misfortune of being burned in the past, so there's that.

One time recently, with a nobody PC, I was given a flat out OOC "not gonna happen" about a plot point I was probably going to pursue IG. I knew why they said no, even without them telling me, because I would have said no too. It would have been too unbalancing and it would definitely have seemed unfair to other players. However, it didn't stop me from inching towards that plot point. This is sort of specific, and of course I can't give exact details, but sometimes when you're trying to do the impossible you should accept it as an endgame death/storage. I knew I would be taken out one way or the other, but I had my fun. The character was extremely enjoyable. He didn't get anywhere near that "not gonna happen" goal, no. But I gave the staff plenty of heads-up and said "doing it anyway, I know this can't be in, kill/store if I come close to attaining this highly-unlikely-anyway goal".

Okay, that probably makes no sense. I guess it can be simplified into a more general "you're probably going to get stored if you become a black robe/head of house/Sorcerer-King, but dude what a way to end a character, and what a goal to strive for!"

A couple more things. One thing I think needs to be taken into consideration is the game world. We play our characters in a world ruled by sorcerer-kings of immeasurable power in near-totalitarian states. The Known World is practically a wasteland, full of terrible creatures both mundane and not-so-mundane. Other than that, it's full of people who can and will fuck you over. This is a really shitty world we all know and love. I realize this won't apply to some of the things people have mentioned, but you have to realize that it may well be the -world- that doesn't want your construction project to succeed. It may be forces simply beyond your grasp that are stopping you from starting/changing a clan. Hell, it may be other players doing it in game, but you can't expect staff to go "hey, those dudes are screwing you over by doing a, b, and c." These are IC things, or at least can be.

Finally, I want to throw my hat in the "sometimes totally player-led leads to stagnation" ring. Most characters are going to get tied up in their personal lives, and though this can be very fun, it can lead to less motivation to do risky, adventurous andexciting things. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Hell, I never play a character with the intent to make mega-plots or whatever. I will say that sometimes the world can use a little prodding about by the imms, though. I thought the HRPT and the build up to it was great. That stuff can't and shouldn't happen even semi-frequently. But sometimes players just need a little nugget to go after and some prodding before things snowball.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 12:21:34 AM
Left to their own devices, yes, this is true. I don't believe it has to be true, though. I believe that players tend to avoid conflict unless they believe they can win. But what if we abandoned thoughts of winning, and just played to have fun?

Maybe our characters aren't suicidal?

Maybe we're not being as OOC as you think we are?

Maybe our characters are weighing the risk/gain effectively?

I think as of now there is far too much risk, as opposed to too little gain.

Shabago: Come back. Fuck.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 12:21:34 AM
Why can't your thug decide to abduct the aide in order to impress the gang boss, on his own? That's what I'm not getting. Why do players think they need staff to tell them to do that? Aren't you just as inventive as we are?

I don't quite think that example was the best to use. There's definitely plots that can be run with PCs, but I think what people are trying to get at is that there are certain plots that -cannot- be started with the resources that PCs have on their own. Examples:

natural disasters that wipe out farms, shifting changes in animal behavior, etc
a cave-in revealing the ruins of steinal or some other ancient place or new raw materials (copper war / adventure plots)
a power-struggle in the senate that influences the entire city (players can be involved to some extent, but never able to lead it)
and other such large-scale, region-affecting plots that simply cannot be maintained with PCs alone, or without staff direction

I feel that the present model is definitely better. Many of the large, region-changing plots are possible through PCs starting them, but what seems to be frustrating a lot of players (from my own view, and what seems to be the sound of it) is that once they start plots, it becomes very very difficult and frustrating to keep things going without the staff stepping in to stir things up. In addition, players don't always want to have to start plots from scratch. Some of the plots with greatest potential can come much more easily and with less time if staff start it (with the oversight and tools that they have) than players, who work with what limited and finite resources available to them.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 12:21:34 AM

Quote from: Bogre on September 16, 2010, 12:09:53 AM
Staff intervention might not help those plots get off the ground if PC's are dying to early. But they could provide some framework for additional things to get started. Maybe my thug who plans to start a gang might never get to the point of starting it, but if Gang Boss Y, suggests PC hope-ful boss X show his talent by really pissing of Lord Templar Hardnose by abducting his aide, hell, my thug might just be needed to knock Militia Mack out of the way.

Why can't your thug decide to abduct the aide in order to impress the gang boss, on his own? That's what I'm not getting. Why do players think they need staff to tell them to do that? Aren't you just as inventive as we are?

Impress the gang boss who's going to do...what? A boss who isn't there? Who never talks to your character? So the response you get is -maybe- an 'Oh, that's cool.' on an email. And then your thug gets executed for the abduction, all the RP you had going is lost, etc, with no benefits to your character beyond a) the jollies of doing the abduction, and at the severe detriment of the aide.

I mean you can look at it from lots of ways. You can say: Oh, that's player-driven plots, and involved conflict, and worked out. Or you can look at it as a pointless abduction/PK or whatever.

But it seems like to me, players are not going to choose something dangerous and risky without a certain gain possible.

The scenario works if: the staff is responsive and reactive to the plot, which the player emailed them about, and then actual consequences, both the good and bad, realistically result from it. If only the bad is going to result (whether from PC's responding realistically or staff shutting down the plot) then no ones going to take that option.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 12:21:34 AM
Left to their own devices, yes, this is true. I don't believe it has to be true, though. I believe that players tend to avoid conflict unless they believe they can win. But what if we abandoned thoughts of winning, and just played to have fun? There are, really, as many reasons to have conflict as you can possibly imagine. They don't even have to be good reasons, or true reasons--they can be about ancient enmities, lies your PC believes, things your PC wants, personal power, political power, sexual power, money, revenge...it's an endless list.

In short, if you're playing Bob Kadius and you want to take down Dick Salarr and his whole gang, as well as a good chunk of Salarr's widget business...there's no reason you can't try. You might not win. And...so what?

I've done stuff like this in the past, and usually had my hand slapped for it.  By the staff, completely OOC.  Just saying.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 07:10:48 PM

Quote from: Shabago on September 15, 2010, 03:50:44 PM
Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

...

I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Shabago, I don't think I ever played in any of your clans while you were on staff, but now I wish I had.  You just became my favorite ex-staffer!

I dislike the new policy, and would like to see more staff-driven stuff.  This has nothing at all to do with a lack of ambition on my, or the playerbase's part, so please, please, please don't feed me the "be the change you want to see" line.  The staff have both the tools and the long-range vision for the game needed to drive some of these things that, by design, the players lack.  Given that, why should players be expected to be able to step up and fill the void the staff left?

The new policy hasn't done anything helpful to the playerbase that I've seen, though it's completely possible I've missed it.  (I hope it has been hugely beneficial on the staff side, but I can't speak to that.)  Before, you had staff-driven plots, and player-driven plots, and player-driven plots spun off of staff-driven plots.  Now we just have player-driven plots.  It's as if the staff closed Allanak for play in order to focus on Tuluk, which would be okay if Tuluk became an awesome place to play, but it still feels like same-old-Tuluk.

At the same time, there has been a trend toward tying the hands of the playerbase, which is the opposite of what should be happening.  People like to point back 5, 10, 15 years ago, to some influential PC and say, "Look!  Look!  See what's possible?" without accounting for the climate of the time.  I'm not trying to diminish those players' accomplishments, but the fact is that things were much looser back then than they are now.  It's not impossible to create an influential PC today, but I do think the bar has been set a lot higher -- and that's a double-edged sword.  PC's behave more realistically, and players are more responsible, but you're less likely to find people willing to step outside the rank and file, or overpowered PCs (in terms of time:skill) that are willing to do crazy stuff just for shits and giggles which, like it or not, generate interest.

If the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

-Let players recruit OOC, both for family members as well as general clan members.  Yes, it's kind of stupid and there's potential for abuse, but shit gets done when you work with people you can trust and rely on.

-Grant clanned PCs much more autonomy and authority to run their own clans.

-Let the indies get away with stupid stuff.  If Amos and Malik can spamcraft their way to millions of 'sid, let them build a wagon without going through 10 RL-months worth of hoops.

-Make the noble houses more appealing.  Pay noble clan members much, much more, and give them discounts on items, and make the law a little flexible in their favor.

-Bump the clan caps up a notch.  If House Kadius becomes a massive blob that consumes all PCs before it... so be it.  They must be doing something right in order to attract that many players.

-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

-Randomly put interesting items into the game, in the hands of low-level people, if possible.  It doesn't have to be the Cursed Sword of Steinal or anything.  A horse, a pet quirri, or an ancient but useless artifact will all work nicely to spur interest and intrigue.

-Slightly off-topic, but put an end to the food/water shortage in Allanak. A single meal has been the price of a commoner's yearly wage for years now, and that's kind of silly.  Enough of the population should have died off or fled to other places now that there should be a sustainable equilibrium.  Once the shortage is over, lower the cost of living in Allanak, and make mining/salting less profitable.

90000000 times everything this man posted. Especially the bolded parts.

Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on September 16, 2010, 01:11:02 AM

Quote from: Old Kank on September 15, 2010, 07:10:48 PM

Quote from: Shabago on September 15, 2010, 03:50:44 PM
Just MY opinion, but I imagine there's a fair bit of resentment within the playerbase that intelligence is being insulted by thinly veiled cover-ups on this fact, such as "Be the change" or my personal favorite, "Sure you can do X, Y or Z" which is an incomplete answer. The rest of it is "So long as you somehow manage to stop Krath itself from rotating, Kill Tektolnes, morph into a Dragon and fly off to a brand new planet, because we really don't want it to happen, so we'll make it impossible TO happen but still give the impression it was possible all along."

...

I'm sorry, but I just don't recall seeing THIS level of hostility/arguements/disagreements/GDB discussions and so on when the PB just logged in to have "Fun" by joining in on whatever storyline/plot was "in your face visible" because staff were running it, could point you in the direction of the "fun" by a superior NPC animation, give you a "quest" when things were in a lull period, and so on.

Shabago, I don't think I ever played in any of your clans while you were on staff, but now I wish I had.  You just became my favorite ex-staffer!

I dislike the new policy, and would like to see more staff-driven stuff.  This has nothing at all to do with a lack of ambition on my, or the playerbase's part, so please, please, please don't feed me the "be the change you want to see" line.  The staff have both the tools and the long-range vision for the game needed to drive some of these things that, by design, the players lack.  Given that, why should players be expected to be able to step up and fill the void the staff left?

The new policy hasn't done anything helpful to the playerbase that I've seen, though it's completely possible I've missed it.  (I hope it has been hugely beneficial on the staff side, but I can't speak to that.)  Before, you had staff-driven plots, and player-driven plots, and player-driven plots spun off of staff-driven plots.  Now we just have player-driven plots.  It's as if the staff closed Allanak for play in order to focus on Tuluk, which would be okay if Tuluk became an awesome place to play, but it still feels like same-old-Tuluk.

At the same time, there has been a trend toward tying the hands of the playerbase, which is the opposite of what should be happening.  People like to point back 5, 10, 15 years ago, to some influential PC and say, "Look!  Look!  See what's possible?" without accounting for the climate of the time.  I'm not trying to diminish those players' accomplishments, but the fact is that things were much looser back then than they are now.  It's not impossible to create an influential PC today, but I do think the bar has been set a lot higher -- and that's a double-edged sword.  PC's behave more realistically, and players are more responsible, but you're less likely to find people willing to step outside the rank and file, or overpowered PCs (in terms of time:skill) that are willing to do crazy stuff just for shits and giggles which, like it or not, generate interest.

If the staff are set on the new model, then the staff need to loosen the reins and let players take over in order to sponsor and encourage player-driven plots.

-Let players recruit OOC, both for family members as well as general clan members.  Yes, it's kind of stupid and there's potential for abuse, but shit gets done when you work with people you can trust and rely on.

-Grant clanned PCs much more autonomy and authority to run their own clans.

-Let the indies get away with stupid stuff.  If Amos and Malik can spamcraft their way to millions of 'sid, let them build a wagon without going through 10 RL-months worth of hoops.

-Make the noble houses more appealing.  Pay noble clan members much, much more, and give them discounts on items, and make the law a little flexible in their favor.

-Bump the clan caps up a notch.  If House Kadius becomes a massive blob that consumes all PCs before it... so be it.  They must be doing something right in order to attract that many players.

-Take the Byn down a notch.  I've never been able to hire the Byn to do anything for less than 300 'sid, and usually it costs much, much more than that.  I don't care what the IC justification is, if you make the armed force of the Byn available to most PCs, they'll get used more.

-Randomly put interesting items into the game, in the hands of low-level people, if possible.  It doesn't have to be the Cursed Sword of Steinal or anything.  A horse, a pet quirri, or an ancient but useless artifact will all work nicely to spur interest and intrigue.

-Slightly off-topic, but put an end to the food/water shortage in Allanak. A single meal has been the price of a commoner's yearly wage for years now, and that's kind of silly.  Enough of the population should have died off or fled to other places now that there should be a sustainable equilibrium.  Once the shortage is over, lower the cost of living in Allanak, and make mining/salting less profitable.

90000000 times everything this man posted. Especially the bolded parts.

My experience with a recent clan leadership role was very much "this is your clan, do what you want with it." Actually, I've heard that more than once. And it worked, too. As to the Byn being over-priced thing... it's only over-priced until you've played a Byn sergeant. I've had to deal with near-monthly mutinies in the past over contracts where the -runners- didn't think they got paid enough. *ULTRA SIGH*

I'm on board with the "sustainable equilibrium" thing in Allanak now. It's been a while, and many citizens should be dead by now. Those prices hurt my soul.

I don't think noble employees should be paid more. I lean more towards perks of some sort, like unique items or discounts. Still, if you're in a clan getting food, water and shelter... those are pretty big perks. That's not even mentioning the relatively-safe combat training in military clans.

I don't like the idea of OOCly recruiting for your clans. Sure, people may cheat anyway, but I just don't like it. For that matter, maybe it's just me, but I really, really don't like playing with people I talk to regularly in real life. It has driven me out of clans/groups before (it was in no way my friend(s)' fault, it just takes some of the magic out of it for me). I guess I'm just antisocial like that.  :-\

Anyway, sorry for the sort-of-derail, but I just feel like most people's gripes would be handled by everyone communicating better in staff-player correspondence, and by staff maybe occasionally throwing players a plot bone here or there when it's needed.

Quote from: Zoltan on September 16, 2010, 02:35:35 AM
My experience with a recent clan leadership role was very much "this is your clan, do what you want with it."

Then you got lucky.

In my current sponsored role, I'd wager a good 50% of suggestions I ever made on things to do or things to change--not documentation, rooms, objects, or anything like that, just sort of "we could do this better" suggestions--were either ignored or I was told my PC didn't have the authority to do that.

Sorry, your PC does not have the authority to learn to drive a wagon to take your dudes places. Sorry, your PC does not have the authority to make the training schedule more fun. Sorry, your PC does not have the authority to etc. etc. etc. The responses were not coming IC via letters from an NPC, it was a flat-out OOC "nope you can't do this" from a staff member to a player. I've noticed a lot of it tends to happen right after staff rotations, especially the reversal of decisions that other staff members had previously agreed to.

Player-run is only interesting if you actually let players run things once in a while. After so many staff rotations, it feels like you have to start your character and your player-run plots over again from scratch because the next staff member will come along and decide no, you can't do that after all. I've stopped trying.

Edit: Just a quick edit to add something positive. I've found one of the best ways to mitigate the damage of staff rotations on your plots as a player is to send in a big ol' "this is who my character is, these are her current goals, this is what she's up to, and these are her thoughts on current events" report. And I also figured I'd add that my comments aren't to be directed at my current imms, but rather the constant feeling of having to build your PC back up from nothing after the tenth or twelfth staff member that's been overseeing you.

In short, I think that the shift toward emphasising player efforts has made the impact of staff rotations far heavier than it was, and not for the better.

SSB, I don't want to know about your character, but isn't it possible that just because your character is a sponsored role does not mean they actually have the authority to authorize such things?  Did you pursue such things with other PCs that might just have such authority?  (An example, there could be two people in Tuluk both sponsored roles in Kadius, but one's an Agent and the other is First Hunter... does First Hunter really have the kind of authority where s/he can take out the wagon?  No.  Does the Agent?  Yes, with limitations.)  I dunno, I think you're taking the "no" responses you've received as more than they really seemed.  You were being told, "Your character can't make such a decision," as a prompt to do some work to get what you desire through other means?

Just a side not.... if you can't pay the Byn 300 coins, you're not planning profitable enough ventures to need them.

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:28:38 AM
Players are interested in building wagons.

Nope. Forget it.

I think this was written about earlier in the thread.

Quote
Players are interested in larger scale wars/conflict.

Nope, not right now.

I have no response to this other than "huh?"  Where do you see people saying "no, not right now?"  For that matter, where do you see staff saying it?

Quote
Players are interested in having new/older clans opened to bring about renewed conflict/interest.

Nah.

I'd change that one to "some" players.  And no, opening up old clans and new clans doesn't solve everything, especially Blackmoon, a clan that was rife with problems from the staff perspective on top of being cool to play.

Quote
Players are interested in having numerous changes of all shapes and sizes just in this thread alone.

I don't think I've seen very many "We'd support that" type answers to them.

I'm not aiming to try and be sarcastic here, but maybe a revision on what it is actually suppose to mean is in order?

Aiming or not, the sarcasm is at least sensed, so I'd reply in kind--have you read any staffer replies in this thread?  You aren't providing any solutions, just picking at semantics and acting as though everything sucks and players can't do anything.  There has to be some regulation of PC activity, and there has to be some initiative by players.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 12:04:14 AM
I don't know, I've tried to think of a plot from time to time and always arrive at the same place.

1. Anything new is very unlikely to be supported. Buildings, items, whatever. Until Arm 2.0.

Have you been trying in the past 18 months? Did your PC actually have the means to make these things? If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", I find this observation very hard to believe, primarily because it's proven wrong by the new buildings/items/rooms that have been put into the game, or are in the process of being put in, in the last 18 months, by players.

Quote2. "Positive" quests (e.g. find the treasure/artifact) are very unlikely to be supported. They don't fit in with the harsh atmosphere.

What puts you in a position to ask the staff to load an item for you to find? It's not that it doesn't fit in with the harsh atmosphere (it should, it follows that if entire cities have been destroyed then there are ruins in various places in the Known), it's that you're asking for something to do that will just result in a free item for you, after your PC randomly gains a reason to search for it.

Quote
What's left?

3. Various plots for screwing with other PCs and groups of PCs. In the interest of balance, rather than supporting kills, the staff will probably throw a wrench or two into any plan, though.

Plots don't always go as planned because if they did, then players could throw up their proposal step-by-step to staff and the plot will be finished up quickly. In reality, they do support PCs fighting/killing other PCs, but there are a lot of hurdles to overcome: especially, can your clan/tribe/city-state (incl. the virtual portion of it) handle a possible counter-attack?

Quote
4. Ask to have NPCs screw with your group. Fun, at times, but not sufficient in itself.

If what I wrote above is not a good indication that there can be sufficient plotting happening, I'm not sure what else to write. I find that claiming "there are no player-driven plots happening" is easier than claiming the positive, because you don't have to offer examples for the former, and offering examples for the latter can be going into Find Out IC territory.

Quote from: Spice Spice Baby on September 16, 2010, 03:58:38 AM
Edit: Just a quick edit to add something positive. I've found one of the best ways to mitigate the damage of staff rotations on your plots as a player is to send in a big ol' "this is who my character is, these are her current goals, this is what she's up to, and these are her thoughts on current events" report. And I also figured I'd add that my comments aren't to be directed at my current imms, but rather the constant feeling of having to build your PC back up from nothing after the tenth or twelfth staff member that's been overseeing you.

In short, I think that the shift toward emphasising player efforts has made the impact of staff rotations far heavier than it was, and not for the better.

Staff rotations, getting new staff for whatever reason, CAN be really difficult for the player leaders, the clan members, and the staffers all. I think you're right, it's very helpful if players send in a thorough synopsis of the state of things. I also believe that now having all character reports contained within the request tool has the potential to help a lot, because I can sort out by "House Kadius" and "Amos" and take a look at everything you've been up to in the long last while. Previously, when all this stuff was only retained in emails in staffers' accounts, it seems like there was very little way for the new staffer to figure out what had been going on. Now, we have the capability to be much better-informed.

Not to mention--the request tool I think keeps us much better-informed on an ongoing basis on everything that's happening in the various locations around the world, because we can check out anyone's requests as they come in, regardless of whether it's in our own clan group. So even though I am just tribal/indies staff, I actually have a pretty decent view of what's happening plot-wise in the southlands and northlands as well. If/when I do get rotated to another area, I think I'll actually be much more ready than I would have been in the era when all those reports were going through email I wasn't privy to.

So...the request tool, I believe, has potentially made us much better in our staff role. Of course that's dependent on the individual staffer to keep up and make use of, but it's there.

From my own experience:  I'd say that staff communication back and forth is more important than animations, but animations are important, too.

I played a leadership role before coming on to staff.  I checked back through the responses I got via e-mail.  There were several times where updates sent in just never got a reply, even when there were questions in it.  I didn't act discouraged about it at the time, but I was discouraged and felt cast-off.  Even if it had just been "we got your report, you're doing fine, continue," that would have been better than no reply at all.

Since coming on to staff, I know that we've put things into the request queue but we have also made a big push to making sure that things are replied to in short order.  What I'm seeing a lot of concern over is the nature of communication, whether it's too harsh, too vague, not involved enough, too much against the player, etc.  I think that I could stand to do better in communicating to people in my responses to requests regarding plots, and in light of the suggestions here, I'll endeavor to do that.  (Granted, I don't answer plotty stuff much, but I do occasionally chime in.)

Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2010, 07:59:23 AM
I'd change that one to "some" players.  And no, opening up old clans and new clans doesn't solve everything, especially Blackmoon, a clan that was rife with problems from the staff perspective on top of being cool to play.

Problems? What problems?

Highlight the problems with Blackmoon, and allow both players and staff to figure out ways to make these problems disappear.

Would you consider a separate thread for discussion?

Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2010, 09:15:31 AM
I played a leadership role before coming on to staff.  I checked back through the responses I got via e-mail.  There were several times where updates sent in just never got a reply, even when there were questions in it.  I didn't act discouraged about it at the time, but I was discouraged and felt cast-off.  Even if it had just been "we got your report, you're doing fine, continue," that would have been better than no reply at all.

This happened a lot of the time to me, too, when I sent in reports and questions via email to staff. And it did not feel good.

Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2010, 09:15:31 AMSince coming on to staff, I know that we've put things into the request queue but we have also made a big push to making sure that things are replied to in short order.

I know you guys don't know this, but Nyr is a big reason that requests get answered in such a timely manner. He pokes at us to get things done. He's very concerned that overall we should do a good job of responding in helpful ways and on time, and I appreciate it.

If I had to guess, I would say that I think we're probably doing a far, far better job of responding to players than just a few years ago.

Quote from: Bogre on September 15, 2010, 11:56:18 PM
One thing that I've never understood is -why- the imm-animations of boss-NPC's went away.

I mean, hell, I would think that would be -fun- for an Imm to do, rather than just sifting through 3 pages of back and forth emails/reports to get to the gist of whats going on. I mean you don't have to go back to the old 'everything done through in game speaking to NPC bosses' but why does it have to be all or none?

Their is a certain 2 IMMs I know of who animate one clans bosses semi-regularly and it is GREAT.

They do it on plot stuff for leaders but also for mundane stuff and it makes the game and experience SOOOOO much more alive.

Love it. You know who you are b/c I sent you Kudos. pls keep that up.

Sorry, got Blackwing mixed up with Blackmoon.  Looks like Blackmoon was destroyed/consolidated into some other things.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 09:25:38 AM

Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2010, 09:15:31 AM
I played a leadership role before coming on to staff.  I checked back through the responses I got via e-mail.  There were several times where updates sent in just never got a reply, even when there were questions in it.  I didn't act discouraged about it at the time, but I was discouraged and felt cast-off.  Even if it had just been "we got your report, you're doing fine, continue," that would have been better than no reply at all.

This happened a lot of the time to me, too, when I sent in reports and questions via email to staff. And it did not feel good.

Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2010, 09:15:31 AMSince coming on to staff, I know that we've put things into the request queue but we have also made a big push to making sure that things are replied to in short order.

I know you guys don't know this, but Nyr is a big reason that requests get answered in such a timely manner. He pokes at us to get things done. He's very concerned that overall we should do a good job of responding in helpful ways and on time, and I appreciate it.

If I had to guess, I would say that I think we're probably doing a far, far better job of responding to players than just a few years ago.

I agree that staff are doing a much better job of responding to players.  Now that I've gotten used to it (and some of the initial problems I had with it have been ironed out), I think the request tool is one of the best things to happen to the game since I've been here.  I think a lot of the difficulties with "player driven" are communication difficulties, and the request tool makes it a lot easier for a lot more knowledge to be exchanged, and for there to be accountability with responding to players in a timely fashion.  Most of my communication-related suggestions were for tweaks to a system that I recognize is much improved.

I kind of feel like this thread looks a lot like how the democrats are trying to gain public opinion by pointing to everything they've done, but that's useless when the players don't -see- the benefits. If we only hear about how good this is, and that (staff-run plots, conflict-generating characters, large-picture plots, etc.) is working, just in the background or in progress, it might be true, but it won't help change the opinions any if the players aren't experiencing it themselves. (I know politics isn't the best model, so just take it as an illustration.)

Also, I very much appreciate the staff starting a thread like this, and I think it's wonderful to have, but the answers that have been provided by the staff aren't very reassuring, given how long this thread is running, with a lot of the same themes being repeated. It's like giving a pill to fix the problem rather than getting to the actual problem.

I -think- what players are trying to say is that while the present player-started, player-run plots are good, we'd like to see much more of a hands-on, visible presence from the staff in keeping plots running.

It doesn't have to be on the scale of the black moon plot (which, by the way, was largely started and run by players to my knowledge, but given further boost by the staff, which I think is ideal), but having that kind of visible staff presence helping to guide and push plots in open-ended directions is huge. Also, many of these large, world-changing plots require magick in some form. I think what players simply want are more staff support in the mundane things. The copper wars being another good example of it, but again, on a smaller scale.

I hope the staff will seriously consider -how- they can improve the current system, rather than giving responses that sound like things are going well, or that players don't really know what's happening. We do. We might not see the whole picture, but we aren't blind.

I think we could do more to animate in regards to player-run plots, whether it be in assistance or in antagonizing them.  I agree.

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 16, 2010, 08:49:04 AM

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 12:04:14 AM
1. Anything new is very unlikely to be supported. Buildings, items, whatever. Until Arm 2.0.

Have you been trying in the past 18 months? Did your PC actually have the means to make these things? If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", I find this observation very hard to believe, primarily because it's proven wrong by the new buildings/items/rooms that have been put into the game, or are in the process of being put in, in the last 18 months, by players.

Yes, a few people keep proclaiming on the the GDB how much new stuff is going in. I've yet to see any of it, at least in Allanak or Red Storm. Same rooms, same items, day after week after month. Oh, some NPC soldiers got new sdescs.

All this new building must be hidden away in clan compounds or so.

Quote

Quote2. "Positive" quests (e.g. find the treasure/artifact) are very unlikely to be supported. They don't fit in with the harsh atmosphere.

What puts you in a position to ask the staff to load an item for you to find? It's not that it doesn't fit in with the harsh atmosphere (it should, it follows that if entire cities have been destroyed then there are ruins in various places in the Known), it's that you're asking for something to do that will just result in a free item for you, after your PC randomly gains a reason to search for it.

Note the word "quests". I'll give an example that address both points 1 and 2. I had a Byn PC that wrote in to the staff to propose that a little script be set up to allow Byn to dig in the training yard (maybe as punishment detail), in an attempt to clean it up a bit. The idea was, after enough 'dig' commands, one would strike a box. More dig commands would unearth it. After finding someone to open the lock, in it would be an old Byn banner that could be carried, heavy enough to appear as an addendum to an sdesc the way heavy objects do.

So some fun, some RP, an object useful to add color to the game, but little staff interest.

I also had a Whiran who, unsurprisingly, given his talents, didn't find it too difficult to amass some coin. I figured maybe I'd set up my own treasure out in the wilderness, gather a few beasts to "guard" it, and try to start a treasure hunt. But it seemed futile, because, without staff help, I couldn't see how to plant a trail of clues to make the hunt interesting. Also, with the limited number of save rooms in the wilderness, someone would probably just stumble onto it and clean it out unceremoniously before the treasure hunters found it. The beasts would wander off or disappear as of the next reboot. It would just all feel too contrived and un-IC to me.

The treasure itself is secondary to the fun and activity it would generate. But the characters don't have the means themselves and the staff is, understandably, adverse to providing "positive" outcomes because soon they'd be inundated in requests for them if they did.

QuoteIt doesn't have to be on the scale of the black moon plot (which, by the way, was largely started and run by players to my knowledge, but given further boost by the staff, which I think is ideal), but having that kind of visible staff presence helping to guide and push plots in open-ended directions is huge. Also, many of these large, world-changing plots require magick in some form. I think what players simply want are more staff support in the mundane things. The copper wars being another good example of it, but again, on a smaller scale.

And, it's been repeated by a number of players on this thread with their own personal experiences, but while some player plots might not be possible with them alone, I think a much better way that staff could help improve things is by giving hints, or some tools to players who want to try running plots, rather than shooting them down or having players run -everything- until it gets big enough for staff to participate. If the staff can support player-generated plots from the beginning, and it doesn't have to be -every- plot, but when players have enough invested in something, having the staff add in other (possibly unforeseen) elements into them would go a long way to improve the present model.

I mentioned it before, but while players can throw the stones to make waves, the waves won't be very large unless the staff give us the tools to make bigger waves.

[edited to add: Thanks for the reply, Talia. More staff animation in the area of furthering along or giving pleasnt (or not) surprises to player plots would be a great improvement to things. The only possible issue I find is to what extent those animations would be.

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 11:18:31 AM
Also, I very much appreciate the staff starting a thread like this, and I think it's wonderful to have, but the answers that have been provided by the staff aren't very reassuring, given how long this thread is running, with a lot of the same themes being repeated. It's like giving a pill to fix the problem rather than getting to the actual problem.

Well, as I said in the original post, Adhira has already stated the policy is not going to be changing. What has happened in this thread is mostly players saying "I want the policy changed." ...OK? I get it. I hear you. But it's not going to happen.

So in lieu of the policy being changed, my question is what can be done? And players, to be frank, as a group you have mostly just pointed fingers. I have not seen anyone saying, "I think I can do more of XYZ" or "I can contribute ABC" or "Now that I think about it, I really haven't tried LMN." I don't see any introspection on the part of the players. That's fairly disheartening and disappointing, because there are MANY more players than there are staff, so what you all do has the potential to impact the game much more widely than anything we can do. (Note, when I say "impact" I mostly mean "create fun.")

I don't have any solutions to offer you, because what you guys are demanding as The Solution has already been stated--it's not going to happen. Nyr and I have both been in here saying there are some things we can be doing better. We just aren't telling you what you want to hear, which is an agreement that the policy should and will be changed.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 11:35:51 AM
Yes, a few people keep proclaiming on the the GDB how much new stuff is going in. I've yet to see any of it, at least in Allanak or Red Storm. Same rooms, same items, day after week after month. Oh, some NPC soldiers got new sdescs.

All this new building must be hidden away in clan compounds or so.

(http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/volcano_hawaii_kilauea_Puu_oo.jpg)

would like a word with you

Quote from: Nyr on September 16, 2010, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 11:35:51 AM
Yes, a few people keep proclaiming on the the GDB how much new stuff is going in. I've yet to see any of it, at least in Allanak or Red Storm. Same rooms, same items, day after week after month. Oh, some NPC soldiers got new sdescs.

All this new building must be hidden away in clan compounds or so.

(http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/volcano_hawaii_kilauea_Puu_oo.jpg)

would like a word with you

Very nice, but not an example of a player-driven plot.

If:
- There were much fewer sponsored roles.
- And.. Much fewer clans slots available for 'free food & water + 400 'sid a month' PCs.
- And... Survival was actually hard, scrapping enough 'sid to survive was actually difficult.

Then... Plots would be much more player driven. Players would haul stuff between cities (to make 'sid), rob old tombs (to make 'sid), and whatnot, on their own accord. Instead of trying to move GMHs around, you'd have itsy-bitsy organizations (that would be stomped on by the GMHs and nobles).

As it is, it is very easy to survive. there are many sponsored roles, and as a result many lackeys on the 'free food & water, spar all day' routine. And plots... Well, plots as a result have to be overarching and require heavy staff involvement. Leaders in GM/Noble houses need to interact with higher-ups (imms), and in order to achieve something meaningful (build and establishment, build a wagon, pass a motion in the senate, start a war with 'nak) need heavy imm involvement and support.

PCs end up being long-lived, relatively lazy, and low risk takers, and fairly loyal to their organizations. Yes- this is highly realistic for a PC employed by a GMH to act this way. But, wouldn't it be more exciting if you were forced to scrape out a living?

Plots in such an environment (where most players are much lower on the social ladder than today) would be much more low-level. Protecting your meager resource in the wilderness from a competing PC group or earning 5000 'sid would suddenly *mean something*.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 11:53:29 AM
Very nice, but not an example of a player-driven plot.

You were complaining about not seeing "new stuff go in." The HRPT prompted a ton of "new stuff going in" in the aftermath, both north and south. Most of it's not done yet. But just because you're not seeing it doesn't mean it's not happening. There are a LOT of building-type plots happening, ALL player-driven.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 11:35:51 AM

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 16, 2010, 08:49:04 AM

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 12:04:14 AM
1. Anything new is very unlikely to be supported. Buildings, items, whatever. Until Arm 2.0.

Have you been trying in the past 18 months? Did your PC actually have the means to make these things? If the answers to both of these questions are "yes", I find this observation very hard to believe, primarily because it's proven wrong by the new buildings/items/rooms that have been put into the game, or are in the process of being put in, in the last 18 months, by players.

Yes, a few people keep proclaiming on the the GDB how much new stuff is going in. I've yet to see any of it, at least in Allanak or Red Storm. Same rooms, same items, day after week after month. Oh, some NPC soldiers got new sdescs.

All this new building must be hidden away in clan compounds or so.

Or in the rest of the world, I guess.

Quote

Quote2. "Positive" quests (e.g. find the treasure/artifact) are very unlikely to be supported. They don't fit in with the harsh atmosphere.

What puts you in a position to ask the staff to load an item for you to find? It's not that it doesn't fit in with the harsh atmosphere (it should, it follows that if entire cities have been destroyed then there are ruins in various places in the Known), it's that you're asking for something to do that will just result in a free item for you, after your PC randomly gains a reason to search for it.

Note the word "quests". I'll give an example that address both points 1 and 2. I had a Byn PC that wrote in to the staff to propose that a little script be set up to allow Byn to dig in the training yard (maybe as punishment detail), in an attempt to clean it up a bit. The idea was, after enough 'dig' commands, one would strike a box. More dig commands would unearth it. After finding someone to open the lock, in it would be an old Byn banner that could be carried, heavy enough to appear as an addendum to an sdesc they way heavy objects do.

So some fun, some RP, an object useful to add color to the game, but little staff interest.

If there's no IC reason for the box to be there, what makes you think it would be placed there because you wanted it to be? That's what I mean - staff aren't going to throw stuff in because of a plan you have on a whim. It has to make sense.

This plot makes more sense, since your PC is actually doing the planting:

Quote
I also had a Whiran who, unsurprisingly, given his talents, didn't find it too difficult to amass some coin. I figured maybe I'd set up my own treasure out in the wilderness, gather a few beasts to "guard" it, and try to start a treasure hunt. But it seemed futile, because, without staff help, I couldn't see how to plant a trail of clues to make the hunt interesting. Also, with the limited number of save rooms in the wilderness, someone would probably just stumble onto it and clean it out unceremoniously before the treasure hunters found it. The beasts would wander off or disappear as of the next reboot. It would just all feel too contrived and un-IC to me.

The treasure itself is secondary to the fun and activity it would generate. But the characters don't have the means themselves and the staff is, understandably, adverse to providing "positive" outcomes because soon they'd be inundated in requests for them if they did.

And it's too bad that didn't go through, because that actually sounds fun. If it had been meshed with a new 'dig' script like you wanted for the Byn banner box plot, you wouldn't have to worry about someone stumbling onto it before it was ready. I think if you worked something out with your staff these days something like that would be very possible.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 11:57:51 AM

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 11:53:29 AM
Very nice, but not an example of a player-driven plot.

You were complaining about not seeing "new stuff go in." The HRPT prompted a ton of "new stuff going in" in the aftermath, both north and south. Most of it's not done yet. But just because you're not seeing it doesn't mean it's not happening. There are a LOT of building-type plots happening, ALL player-driven.

No, my original point was that a character is very unlikely to be able to effect any change on the world. There are a few, like LoD of old, with the patience, drive, charisma and longevity to see it through. Then Cutthroat said there is plenty and I replied that I haven't seen it.

Funny too, because my current character is especially well able to poke into all nooks and crannies.

Quote from: lepxii on September 16, 2010, 11:56:54 AM
If:
- There were much fewer sponsored roles.
- And.. Much fewer clans slots available for 'free food & water + 400 'sid a month' PCs.
- And... Survival was actually hard, scrapping enough 'sid to survive was actually difficult.

Then... Plots would be much more player driven. Players would haul stuff between cities (to make 'sid), rob old tombs (to make 'sid), and whatnot, on their own accord. Instead of trying to move GMHs around, you'd have itsy-bitsy organizations (that would be stomped on by the GMHs and nobles).

As it is, it is very easy to survive. there are many sponsored roles, and as a result many lackeys on the 'free food & water, spar all day' routine. And plots... Well, plots as a result have to be overarching and require heavy staff involvement. Leaders in GM/Noble houses need to interact with higher-ups (imms), and in order to achieve something meaningful (build and establishment, build a wagon, pass a motion in the senate, start a war with 'nak) need heavy imm involvement and support.

PCs end up being long-lived, relatively lazy, and low risk takers, and fairly loyal to their organizations. Yes- this is highly realistic for a PC employed by a GMH to act this way. But, wouldn't it be more exciting if you were forced to scrape out a living?

Plots in such an environment (where most players are much lower on the social ladder than today) would be much more low-level. Protecting your meager resource in the wilderness from a competing PC group or earning 5000 'sid would suddenly *mean something*.

PC turnover in clans is a lot higher than you'd think.  Sure, every once in awhile you get a long-lived "worker" PC, but most of the long-lifers are aides and city-based roles.  Every once in a while you get a solid core group of hunters/grebbers who last months or more in a clan, but from my experience, this is rather unusual.

RE: Salt Merchant
The black moon and mountains and all that was actually started by a group of players. Of course the end results required both staff and player participation, but it's a prime example of what can be done when players -and- staff work together on something.

Quote from: TaliaI don't have any solutions to offer you, because what you guys are demanding as The Solution has already been stated--it's not going to happen. Nyr and I have both been in here saying there are some things we can be doing better. We just aren't telling you what you want to hear, which is an agreement that the policy should and will be changed.

The present model is fine, and I can quote a few players that have stated so on this thread. Also, I think we'll probably agree there's more the players can do to 'make things happen', but I guess what's frustrating is that we don't fully understand what exactly the staff wants us to do, when a lot of what we attempt gets denied, or in one way or another, progress is stopped or slowed to a standstill.

It's like the staff telling the players to run, all the while pushing (or holding) them back when there's some progress made. In a lot of ways, this is probably due to miscommunication, and I'm not at all saying it's the staff's fault alone. I'm just saying there may be better avenues of responding to players instead of simple yes's and no's.

I'll be one to add that having more animations, and better communication between staff and players will take a lot more from staff than at preset. Let us know how -we- can help, and I think lots more would be ready to do so.

PC turnover in clans - yes it is high for new hires. However, much of this is due to player boredom than any real IG cause. Heck, most clans have "anti boredom" rules and highly stress the fact that new hires should not do W, X, Y & Z activities (which are dangerous, and often kill new hires who do them on their own) -- of course, it seems that many of the new hires end up doing them anyway (leading to a loop, if you may, in which said new hires die/disappear, and said rules are reasserted).

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 12:05:09 PM
RE: Salt Merchant
The black moon and mountains and all that was actually started by a group of players. Of course the end results required both staff and player participation, but it's a prime example of what can be done when players -and- staff work together on something.

Yes, I know this, but face it: the results came from a staff-implemented decision tree. It's not something a player can request to have happen, obviously. It's not what we're talking about in this thread.

On the subject of not seeing player run changes.

I know of at least 6 (keep in mind there could be many more, but this is what I know of for sure) In areas just about anybody can see, less then two years old. Of course, unless you were involved in some manner with them, you are not likely to know they are player changes. But hey, next time you stable your mount in a certain area, thank the players for that.

There is no end of the world plot.  For those of you under the impression that we have a grand end of the world plot and are railroading you all down the road to glorious destruction, we are not.  Those plots wrapped up as of the last HRPT, at which point it was determined to stop pursuing a never-ending end of the world.  This wasn't clarified when it occurred, but I have confirmed this is the case.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 16, 2010, 12:07:29 PM

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 12:05:09 PM
RE: Salt Merchant
The black moon and mountains and all that was actually started by a group of players. Of course the end results required both staff and player participation, but it's a prime example of what can be done when players -and- staff work together on something.

Yes, I know this, but face it: the results came from a staff-implemented decision tree. It's not something a player can request to have happen, obviously. It's not what we're talking about in this thread.

Let's get this straight.

Quote from: current policyStaff instead will be concentrating on facilitating the stories that players are creating. The overall goal is that gameplay happens at a level that is accessible to players, allowing them to feel a very real part of the action.

Another goal with the change is to move the focus of Storytellers from the administrative side of running clans, to the story oriented side. With a Highlord in charge of each group we hope that much of the admin work can be relieved and with dedicated HL's for each group decisions can get sign off at the team level.

The overall aim of this is to see STs out there animating every day, because they -want- to, to see plots and stories that reflect what players are interested in and want to achieve and staff supporting what you all are doing.

<snip>

While we want to focus our attentions on making the game more player driven as staff we still need to share a vision for the game. There will always be a need for oversight and direction at the macro level, what we want to make sure is that most of the action plays out at the micro level, where the players are, rather than up high where you are more observer than participant.

I won't go into specific details with the whole black moon/elements plot that happened, as I wasn't a large part of it to say much, but I'll take what I know from it in general.

Players took the initiative to start something. They worked on the micro level until things got big enough that staff stepped in. It's the new mountains and floods and other geographic changes that took place that are the macro level, staff-implemented things. Players had a say in the smaller, micro-level decisions that impacted where things went, the pacing, etc, to a large degree.

What I think players are misunderstanding, is that when you mean "player-driven", it is not like players are becoming some dungeon master on the level of staff. While the players do have a very large potential to change things, certain things just aren't possible player-side, like deciding that a fucking mountain will rise up, how large that mountain will be, the impact it will have on the city, the timing of it, etc. All of those decisions can be impacted by players, but the actual decision making is for staff to decide. What it sounds like, are that when players think of "player-driven" plots, they think they can do all those decision-making on their own.

To use an example made just a few posts ago. A digging plot in the Byn compound to produce a box with a Byn banner. Sure, players can dig to help clean up the Byn compound, but it's the staff's decisions -what- they end up finding. A player could change this by putting something of their -own- possession there (whether in the past, with another PC, or at that present), but we can't have the staff add in these elements that are an area to be left to the staff.

These are designed to try and HELP give the PB examples of what they can or can't do based off of staff replies. Yes, we get the policy isn't going to change (sad this was decided before this discussion even occured) but I think the following work within these new (evidentally misunderstood) guidelines.

Conflict, on the larger scale:

My PC Templar (I don't have one, just example) absolutely hates Tuluk. They go about getting as much of the player-base within Allanak whipped into a frenzy to go and kick their arses, and ships off various insults or what-not to try and goad Tuluk into the same state. Will this happen?

My PC has the drive, allies, coin and materials to re-open a raiding clan (like the Blackmoon) to cause conflict against the city states/settlements. Will we get the support of a built hide-out/business location, NPCs built, etc?

My PC spends X-amount of time and effort to try and cause a certain creature to be "burned out" of a location to attack Tuluk, or the outlying outpost to really add to the issues already being dealt with. Would this happen?

My D-elf decides that they REALLY hate another settlement and various actions are taken to try and bring about a war (Random example of the Soh against the Akei) Would this happen?

My Guilder decides to try and rally the whole of the Rinth over time to assist the 'Crew' in an organized raid on Allanak proper food-stuff locations to let those damn dirty southsiders starve instead of them for a change. Would this get support?

Now, there's a handful of "player driven" thought up plans/story-lines/plots. If some receive a "Yes, it's doable" terrific. If it's a "No." perhaps a brief line on why they're not could be added? I think it would go a long way to clear up issues from the OP and give the PB a more clear cut guideline on what's still feasable to run with/try.

Quote from: SemperTo use an example made just a few posts ago. A digging plot in the Byn compound to produce a box with a Byn banner. Sure, players can dig to help clean up the Byn compound, but it's the staff's decisions -what- they end up finding. A player could change this by putting something of their -own- possession there (whether in the past, with another PC, or at that present), but we can't have the staff add in these elements that are an area to be left to the staff.

And? In my original post, I stated that these are things that players can't do. My question was, what's left?

So what's left? I guess it's just stealing someone's stuff, plotting to kill her lover, and other negatives.

We're given the responsibility to start and run the plots, yet we don't have a lot of the tools we need to really make it work outside of a narrow range.

Actually, I'll provide some examples of tools that would really help:

1. The ability to bury things, and have the game remember where they are.

2. Proper tools for raiders. The ability to set ambushes (if one takes long enough and has
a sand-colored cover, maybe, even without stealth skills), and properly block roads, for example. The ability to remain more anonymous when looked at.

3. Relax the restriction on reading and writing. The possibilities opened would be endless.

4. An automated system for creating custom crafts in limited categories. For example, I'm sure there would be a market for the creation of busts and statues of existing notable PCs. What noble wouldn't want a chamber with some busts of his notable ancestors (PCs past)? Have the quality of the piece depend on the skill of the maker. Nobles would have to send out expeditions for rare materials. A chance for real patronage of the arts in Tuluk, in the form of sculptors (implement a low-improvement-rate sculpting skill)?

Yet we're paralyzed developmentally by Arm 2.0.

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 12:05:09 PM
The present model is fine, and I can quote a few players that have stated so on this thread. Also, I think we'll probably agree there's more the players can do to 'make things happen', but I guess what's frustrating is that we don't fully understand what exactly the staff wants us to do, when a lot of what we attempt gets denied, or in one way or another, progress is stopped or slowed to a standstill.

It's like the staff telling the players to run, all the while pushing (or holding) them back when there's some progress made. In a lot of ways, this is probably due to miscommunication, and I'm not at all saying it's the staff's fault alone. I'm just saying there may be better avenues of responding to players instead of simple yes's and no's.

I mentioned things I'd like to see done by players in my original post:

Quote from: Talia on September 15, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
-- Players do get told "no" fairly frequently about plots they want to run. There can be a lot of reasons for this: Game or clan or player balance, lack of Zalanthan technology to do such a thing, doesn't make IC sense, etc. Thus far I have not seen any "no"s given where I didn't think it was very solid--and there is a lot of dialogue staff-side about these things, from all quarters. That is, if you're told no, there's a very good reason behind it.

-- Players have sometimes taken the policy to mean that they can just tell staff after the fact about a plot idea, clan change, etc. But player-driven does not mean the same thing as players making all the decisions.

-- Frequent player reporting helps plots move along. Staff assumes that if you're not telling us what you're doing toward a plotline, then you don't care about it. So if you do care about it, please tell us about it. We're not going to just step in and take over; if player interest fizzles, the plot fizzles. I suggest weekly reports that detail your plot progress.

-- Running your plot ideas OOCly past your clan staff before you ever do anything toward them in game is very helpful. Sometimes there are OOC reasons why a plot cannot proceed, and you will be told that up front before wasting your efforts. If there aren't OOC reasons, we'll say that, and then you can proceed to try it out.

-- When you involve more PCs than your immediate circle, and especially more clans than just yours, your plot is far more likely to garner interest, attention, and support amongst the staff.

-- Building plots (that is, the kind of plot where you want to build a building or a garden or a new series of items or whatnot) are OK, but let's be honest here: Most of the time they are not very exciting. If you want excitement in your plots, I would suggest a few things: 1. Look for ways to make conflict between individuals and organizations, 2. Think about kinds of plots that would require adventuring RPTs.

-- Everyone always wants war. But, war is very time-intensive for staff (buildup, battles, and then aftermath) and it also leads to a lot of player complaints of unfairness if it's between PC groups. Might I suggest that players look into cold war, instead of hot war? Envision what a Zalanthan cold war and covert actions against individuals and organizations might look like. I can't/won't guarantee this can happen either, but I think it's more viable.

-- If you want or hope for staff presence and attention at your RPTs, arrange with staff what is a good time for us first, before you ask your players. Each staffer has limited time and limited times we can be in game. We can't be there if we can't be there.

I'd emphasize there that frequent, well-organized, informative character reporting is IMO the very most important thing you can do for player-staff communication and thus plot success.

Another thought about your reports is that you might try actually giving us IC stuff that you'd like leaked to the clan, in your reports. Personally, if you tell me "Well, Malik's been seen feeling up a gemmer, some people might have noticed that," then I'm going to be very interested in jumping into a gossipy low-level clan NPC and spreading the rumor. Rumors are fun! But you might need to help me out. If you give me fodder for animations, it makes it mentally easier for me to jump into them, rather than just "Well, I guess I haven't animated for these guys in a while...I have nothing to say...but let's give it a go." Sometimes players are not good at separating IC from OOC in reports, either--something for you all to work on, as well as staff.

Off the top of my head, other things you can do:

-- Wish up when you are taking your group out of the city gates. We might be able to respond with some animation. Yes, it will probably be dangerous! But it will also be fun. And note, you don't have to be the group leader to do the wishing up--it's OK to wish up just in case your group leader hasn't done it. Then, while you are on your trip, you might think about stopping somewhere, resting, and/or taking the road slowly. If a PC group wants to travel quickly and uninterrupted, the staff's desire to animate some fun danger for you won't do anything to stop that from happening--we won't be able to catch you.

-- Wish up when you are hanging around the clan compound or wherever and you'd love a random animation. Be polite. Wish up only once. We may not be able to get to it, and/or the appropriate staffer may not be online. But if you ask for what you want, you might get it.

-- Be in the appropriate place for your clan, and follow the clan schedule if there is one. For hypothetical example, if you're playing a Runner in the Byn but you're constantly out grebbing in the salt flats (breaking the rules), it's going to be much harder for me to find you for animations. And you will probably miss animations that happen when I see two or three other Bynners gathered together. When I animate, I'm looking for maximum impact to the time I'm spending--it's more satisfying and effective when there's a few of you hanging out together.

-- When you do get a random animation in your clan, please refrain from treating that non-boss NPC like they're all that or should know everything. Sometimes staffers feel uncomfortable animating for you if you're going to take the animation as being The Hand Of God. Make it enjoyable for us, too, when we're just trying to add some flavor or spice up your life.

I'll be pondering other stuff players can do to get what you want and post if I come up with anything. (More animations seems to be something players want, overall.)

Quote from: Salt MerchantWe're given the responsibility to start and run the plots, yet we don't have a lot of the tools we need to really make it work outside of a narrow range.

Quote from: SemperI mentioned it before, but while players can throw the stones to make waves, the waves won't be very large unless the staff give us the tools to make bigger waves.

I believe we're on the same page regarding that. While players have a large potential to change things, there's only a certain level that we can attain without staff being able to run with it the rest of the way.

[added: And I think one way that staff can help with this is through animations, bringing realistic reactions to our plots. They've mentioned all this already though, and I hope to see it working.]

QuoteThe overall aim of this is to see STs out there animating every day, because they -want- to, to see plots and stories that reflect what players are interested in and want to achieve and staff supporting what you all are doing.

[edited to add: removed the rest as it isn't relevant after Talia's response]

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:27:11 PM
My PC Templar (I don't have one, just example) absolutely hates Tuluk. They go about getting as much of the player-base within Allanak whipped into a frenzy to go and kick their arses, and ships off various insults or what-not to try and goad Tuluk into the same state. Will this happen?

Probably not, for IC reasons. But you could try, and you could probably make a lot of fun for people by doing so. There's nothing wrong with losing a conflict, failing in your goals, or getting your PC killed. In PC vs PC conflict, SOMEONE is going to lose. But if everyone has fun, then who cares?

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:27:11 PMMy PC has the drive, allies, coin and materials to re-open a raiding clan (like the Blackmoon) to cause conflict against the city states/settlements. Will we get the support of a built hide-out/business location, NPCs built, etc?

You're not going to get Blackmoon re-opened. And there is a "no new clans" policy. That being said, if you were to start this in game and show that you are truly contributing conflict, plot, and fun, then I think you might be able to find staff support for some of what you want. I think it depends on the players, their communication with staff, and what they are truly trying to do. If you're just looking to put in a new clan and "win"...no, those are not compelling reasons to staff.

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:27:11 PMMy PC spends X-amount of time and effort to try and cause a certain creature to be "burned out" of a location to attack Tuluk, or the outlying outpost to really add to the issues already being dealt with. Would this happen?

I think this might be do-able. Again...you'll need to communicate, plan, etc. I recommend reading LoD's old posts about how he played Thrain. There's nothing to say there can't be another Thrain or another LoD.

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:27:11 PMMy D-elf decides that they REALLY hate another settlement and various actions are taken to try and bring about a war (Random example of the Soh against the Akei) Would this happen?

I think this might be do-able. See above.

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:27:11 PMMy Guilder decides to try and rally the whole of the Rinth over time to assist the 'Crew' in an organized raid on Allanak proper food-stuff locations to let those damn dirty southsiders starve instead of them for a change. Would this get support?

I think this might be do-able. See above.

All of what you propose to do is nearly insanely risky--not because of staff, but because of other players. (Seriously, we don't need to stop you guys in your plans of evil, you're really good at stopping each other.) Few players have the patience and perseverance to do things like this. But some players over the years have proved that it can be done. I believe very strongly that it STILL can be done.

Let's all remember that, in the end, Thrain lost. Allanak stands. But wow, what he created while trying.

In my brief leader role, I had success with plots which:  A) Would result in a clear benefit to my clan, either through reputation or resources;  B)  Could be mostly or entirely achieved through PC actions (especially ones that kept minions busy);  C)  Didn't involved anything that wasn't beyond my character's realistic control or influence;  D) Didn't involve staff work for an incredibly transitory, one-shot thing.

From reading accounts here, I suppose I lucked out because following that rubric, I was never told "no."  Sometimes I was told, "That's unlikely" or "You should consider the difficulty of X" and then I adjusted my strategy and still went after the goals.  Following this rubric, I had room descs changed when appropriate, npcs permanently moved, etc.  There were plenty of changes and I saw many other leaders around me also instigating and successfully making changes.

Edit:  I always notified staff when I had an idea for something that would ultimately require staff assistance.  Feedback was important, even if it took several tries to make sure we were all on the same page.  I updated staff religiously and copiously.

Thank you, Talia.

Quote from: Shabago on September 16, 2010, 12:27:11 PM
These are designed to try and HELP give the PB examples of what they can or can't do based off of staff replies. Yes, we get the policy isn't going to change (sad this was decided before this discussion even occured) but I think the following work within these new (evidentally misunderstood) guidelines.

Just another comment about all your examples/questions. I think that, probably, if you really want to rock the boat of the gameworld, you're going to need to be standing NOT in the boat. PC templars, nobles, merchant family members, and other clan leadership roles frequently have their hands tied by the V/NPC authority layer, by the many alliances and agreements that exist between organizations, by the rules of the organizations (don't hire magickers, don't hire elves, etc.). I am not saying that these limits are a bad thing, or that they don't make sense--this is our gameworld, this is how it works. I just think that those limits are limiting if you really, truly want to play the bad guy who starts the big conflict.

Food for thought.

Just letting you guys know, I've been asked to compile and summarize the items from this discussion which are things staff can reasonably do to improve the current system, for the other staff to look over. We're going to conclude this discussion at the end of the day today (I'll lock it up) so it doesn't drag endlessly on. So go ahead and post before then if you've got more thoughts (especially new, interesting, helpful thoughts).

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 01:00:36 PM
Just another comment about all your examples/questions. I think that, probably, if you really want to rock the boat of the gameworld, you're going to need to be standing NOT in the boat. PC templars, nobles, merchant family members, and other clan leadership roles frequently have their hands tied by the V/NPC authority layer, by the many alliances and agreements that exist between organizations, by the rules of the organizations (don't hire magickers, don't hire elves, etc.). I am not saying that these limits are a bad thing, or that they don't make sense--this is our gameworld, this is how it works. I just think that those limits are limiting if you really, truly want to play the bad guy who starts the big conflict.

I agree with this, but the staff have been almost unyielding in their support of clans over independents.  "You made an indie merchant, and raised over 1 MILLION 'sids?  That's cute and all, but Kadius and Salarr are still bigger and more influential than you'll ever be."  The limits make sense for the game world, and I even agree with siding with clans over independents, because that's where the game's continuity and long-range vision stems from. 

But, don't you see how this sends a mixed message?  The staff says do stuff within the very narrow confines of the existing, open clans, but don't step outside the lines!  Or go outside of clans and do stuff, but... don't expect to really accomplish anything because you don't fit in the game world.

What's more important, a tight, well-themed environment that players actually have to work against, or a game world where people are encouraged to do things and promote fun?  I'm leaning towards fun, personally.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 16, 2010, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 01:00:36 PM
Just another comment about all your examples/questions. I think that, probably, if you really want to rock the boat of the gameworld, you're going to need to be standing NOT in the boat. PC templars, nobles, merchant family members, and other clan leadership roles frequently have their hands tied by the V/NPC authority layer, by the many alliances and agreements that exist between organizations, by the rules of the organizations (don't hire magickers, don't hire elves, etc.). I am not saying that these limits are a bad thing, or that they don't make sense--this is our gameworld, this is how it works. I just think that those limits are limiting if you really, truly want to play the bad guy who starts the big conflict.

I agree with this, but the staff have been almost unyielding in their support of clans over independents.  "You made an indie merchant, and raised over 1 MILLION 'sids?  That's cute and all, but Kadius and Salarr are still bigger and more influential than you'll ever be."  The limits make sense for the game world, and I even agree with siding with clans over independents, because that's where the game's continuity and long-range vision stems from. 

But, don't you see how this sends a mixed message?  The staff says do stuff within the very narrow confines of the existing, open clans, but don't step outside the lines!  Or go outside of clans and do stuff, but... don't expect to really accomplish anything because you don't fit in the game world.

What's more important, a tight, well-themed environment that players actually have to work against, or a game world where people are encouraged to do things and promote fun?  I'm leaning towards fun, personally.

A tight, well-themed environment that players actually have to work against--or with--is more important by far.

If you want to do these things, do them, don't promote hypothetical situations and the likely result.  Sure, your indie merchant probably will get killed by a GMH.  This shouldn't stop you from trying.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 16, 2010, 01:11:13 PM
What's more important, a tight, well-themed environment that players actually have to work against, or a game world where people are encouraged to do things and promote fun?  I'm leaning towards fun, personally.

You seem to equate fun with winning. They are not the same thing.

Quote from: Old Kank on September 16, 2010, 01:11:13 PM
I agree with this, but the staff have been almost unyielding in their support of clans over independents.  "You made an indie merchant, and raised over 1 MILLION 'sids?  That's cute and all, but Kadius and Salarr are still bigger and more influential than you'll ever be."  The limits make sense for the game world, and I even agree with siding with clans over independents, because that's where the game's continuity and long-range vision stems from.

This is not siding with clans over independents. Unclanned have a clan--it's called "Unclanned." Those players get responses to their requests in the same manner that clanned players do.

Enforcing the game world is what that is. The big scary hugeness of those organizations is part of what makes the gameworld fun. The challenge is what makes plots fun...not winning.

If what you're saying is that you want to be able to create plots AND you want to be guaranteed to win them AND you want staff to be primarily responsible for running them in a predictable manner...err. Wouldn't you rather just go play a video game? I don't mean to belittle your desires, but I do mean to say that you can't get what you want from ARM, if that is what you want.

I think Salt Merchant's point is that you're saying rock the boat, but to clanned leaders, you say don't rock the boat.

So basically stating that you have to be the Thrain Ironsword or unclanned raiders or a sorc or something to rock the boat.

This would be fine if PC city-clanned peoples goals were to 'stabilize the boat'. But they don't really get that goal from staff, and Salt merchant's problem is that if they decide instead to try and rock, they'll be handslapped. So its kind of like 'You can do what you want. Except this. Or that. And none of that.'

Quote from: Bogre on September 16, 2010, 01:34:07 PM
I think Salt Merchant's point is that you're saying rock the boat, but to clanned leaders, you say don't rock the boat.

So basically stating that you have to be the Thrain Ironsword or unclanned raiders or a sorc or something to rock the boat.

This would be fine if PC city-clanned peoples goals were to 'stabilize the boat'. But they don't really get that goal from staff, and Salt merchant's problem is that if they decide instead to try and rock, they'll be handslapped. So its kind of like 'You can do what you want. Except this. Or that. And none of that.'

I think you have a point that staff have not clearly stated "If you accept this role as templar/noble/GMH family/whatever you will probably not get to invade Tuluk/kill off Winrothol/overthrow Kurac/blah. So don't pin your plans on that," either on an individual basis during the recruitment phase (unless the player states up front they want to do something along those lines), or on the GDB in announcements and whatnot.

However, I don't believe that staff have EVER indicated to players that they'd get to do those things if they are in a sponsored role. I don't see any support for that idea, actually. I believe it's an idea that players have built up, independent and contrary to ALL statements of the staff, ever. I think it's a misconception, and I'm not sure why players have it--except that it's maybe partly because we continue to get new players trying out these roles and so they haven't been previously personally told it's not going to happen.

I think staff could probably make it a standard part of our announcements for sponsored roles that we want to see specific plans from applicants for reasonable plots that don't have to do primarily with rocking the boat.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 01:05:01 PM
Just letting you guys know, I've been asked to compile and summarize the items from this discussion which are things staff can reasonably do to improve the current system, for the other staff to look over....

Thanks for starting the discussion and doing the groundwork on this!  It was really heartening to have a discussion with input from both sides that was largely reasoned and thoughtful.

Now, I'm new to this game, and all, but I just thought I'd like to make a quick comment.

Since this is a fantasy game, I can imagine that some of you have read at least one or two books from the Legacy of Drizzt series by R.A. Salvatore. If you've read the first three or so which take place in Menzoberranzan, you might already be able to figure out what I'm about to suggest, if not, here's a quick run-down: In Drow society, all drow are constantly scheming to one-up or otherwise destroy each other. It's the ultimate rat race. Within this society, there are several noble houses, which (along with an unhealthy level of infighting) are constantly scheming to destroy, or one-up, each other as well. For the most part, there really is no reason for some of these houses to be going after each other, yet even the wealthiest and most influential still takes part in the covert warfare. They do it simply so they can garner more power, and keep a hold on the power they already have.
In the incredibly harsh world of Armageddon, why are the clans not constantly trying to one-up each other? The argument that you don't gain anything from it, quite frankly, makes little to no sense. Power is a drug, after all, and eventually every junky needs more and more of their poison to keep the high (and, I guess, they also need to keep other junkies from stealing their drugs, or something).

If your clan leader, in the world of Arm, isn't the type to constantly pursue more and more wealth and power, how did they reach the rank they're at in the first place?

I'm really enjoying reading the various points and responses here. It's enlightening to read other people's experiences and perspectives regarding plots.

A constructive suggestion: I think it would be beneficial to some players to have some kind of how-to guide about initiating player-driven plots that may require staff support. I know something like this may seem unnecessary, but it's evident in this thread that a number of players have had difficulty getting a plot off the ground. I suspect that players often don't know the ways in which the staff would be willing to support plots.

Also, someone brought up the previous suggestion of "job descriptions" for sponsored roles. I've loved that idea since it first came up, and I hope that we see those at some point.

There are varying levels of knowledge.  Both between players, and between players and staff.  This creates difference in people's perspectives of what is and what is not the logical response of the gameworld to any particular action.  Tempered by individual judgement, I think these factors drive the plots people submit.

There are plots in this thread where I read them and I think "They have to be joking, right?"

Take this with a grain of salt, because my opinion here is gained through posts on the GDB, present and past, but I would posit that there are a small number of people where the individual's judgment is the problem.  A sense of entitlement may also play into this, but with repeated attempts at driving things created from poor judgment (at least where Arm plots are concerned) resentment against the staff builds, because they have the perception that they aren't let to do anything.  And if they formulated a plot in poor judgement, they shouldn't be.  How can we change people's judgment to be better?

Among a greater number of players, in fact I would say all of us, there are differences in perspective on what is and what is not the logical response of the gameworld to particular actions.  If we do not have a handle on what a logical response would be to our proposed plots, we are going to propose plots which we think fit into the gameworld, but do not.  Or could not succeed.  Or would not get the support from our clan/government/etc that we think it should.  People who have been around longer, or have played repeated roles in a particular area/clan/race/etc hopefully have a higher likelihood of having a more realistic and "correct" (i.e. vis a vis the staff's perspective) view of the world and logical responses.  How can we change people's perspectives of the gameworld, and the logical responses they can expect, to be more in line with staff's?

Personally, I feel that it goes back to the first line of my post.  Knowledge.  For perspective, to give some (vague) examples of why knowledge is important:  In the past year, I was asking about one topic with my staff, and in explaining it they touched on something else.  This wasn't how I thought about this other thing at all, but in absorbing the information, it changed my entire perspective of my clan.  It was that fundamental.  At a different time, I found out about an agreement that my clan had with another.  That was nowhere in our docs.  Again, changing my perspective on how I should be interacting with that other clan.  For judgment, I feel that giving people the reasons why and explaining them is the only way to hone their judgment.  Not doing this gives them no basis to change.  Some people will never change even if you do, and will continue on with poor judgment.

Unfortunately, knowledge is one of those sacred cows.  There are, literally, almost twenty years of IC knowledge.  Much of which the staff doesn't even have.  Much of which is, admittedly, irrelevant.  But the staff also has, per new staff statements on coming onto staff, much more information available than the players.  It would seem in many cases, staff are also the only way to get that knowledge into the game, as while another player might or might not have it, in many instances it is unlikely they can justify their character having it.  While it is incumbent upon the staff to keep much obscured, or just dribble out certain information, I think it is also incumbent upon them to ensure that they are sharing knowledge that can grow their player's perspectives and judgment about the gameworld.  Responding to plot suggestions with some of the ancilliary information (both IC knowledge and reasoning) staff is using to determine their response seems an excellent way to accomplish this.  Oh, and updating the documents to include all the historic and active treaties, agreements, etc.

Of course, my judgment may be faulty in thinking those should be available to any leader type.

In summary, staff have a key role in building better players.

Just a quick run over the thread and came up with a couple areas that more staff input would be welcome.

Quote from: KiaraI agree with your first point. I disagree with your second. Why can't you as staff infuse a plot with a little spice if it begins to unravel. You're here not just to be facilitators, but also guides that help steer things along if something bad happens. Doing nothing contributes just that: nothing to the dynamic of the world. If things are allowed to fall apart, the world becomes static. Boring.

A few points of my own from this, generated from my thoughts and those of other players here:
- organizations become stagnant when left alone
   If player-initiated plots in their clan are starting to falter, I believe infusing some spice and action into the mix from the staff-side will go quite far in bringing the clan back to life. Players can't always be expected to know what they want to do next without -some- kind of guidance. It's like dropping us into a jungle and telling us to make a path through it. If we don't know what the possible paths are, and whether or not it's the right direction in the first place, it won't be long before we start giving up from frustration. And once we start on a path, prodding us in the right direction now and then, or dropping us crumbs to follow or better tools to work with will do wonders.
   A good way to put it is for staff to possibly be more "inventively reactive".

- Player-run/initiated plots have one major down-side. They don't have the grand, over-arching perspective to things that staff have, and it's -hard- generating plots that are closely linked to game history and feels a part of the world, rather than contrived and forced. Much of this is due to the short life-span of players, but also the fact that we can't make characters that have their history, beginning from birth to their creation, and all the characters and elements that come with it. So the feud between Noble House X and Noble House Y will only continue so long as the present PCs are alive. Once they die, there's very little from them that will linger on for future PCs through their children, or from their servants, etc.
   Through staff animations, and responses to player-run plots, allowing these elements to crop into situations will help tie the plots more firmly into game history, give players much more of an investment in seeing things followed through to the end, and provide more over-arching plots that reach not only farther across, but deeper within organizations/clans themselves.

- On a similar note, perhaps staff can provide more large, macro-level direction for player plots. It doesn't have to start from scratch, simply building on the plots that players are working with, and helping to remove the roofs from the possibilities to extent farther than players alone could do.

Quote from: TaliaWhy can't your thug decide to abduct the aide in order to impress the gang boss, on his own? That's what I'm not getting. Why do players think they need staff to tell them to do that? Aren't you just as inventive as we are?

Staff have been players before, so I'm pretty certain you all know just how inventive we all can be. The issue I believe is that players don't have quite the same resources as staff, and the major difference is simply that of perspective. We only have the perspective of our own characters to work with, while staff have the big picture. I mentioned it before in this post, but giving players some avenues of progress, and some direction with their plots will pay for the effort in the end, as we now have the tools and direction to work toward, rather than attempting to forge our own path without any guidance, and meeting dead ends in the process. It's constantly running into dead ends that causes player frustration with plots and with the staff.

Quote from: Twilight on September 16, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
In summary, staff have a key role in building better players.

I loved your whole post and definitely agree with this. Personally, I wouldn't be the player I am (OK, not like I'm all that, but you know what I'm saying) were it not for prior generations of staffers. I think we haven't quite figured out yet how to teach players to run plots (nor do we have all the necessary tools in place), but I hope that we are headed there.

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 04:12:33 PM
If player-initiated plots in their clan are starting to falter, I believe infusing some spice and action into the mix from the staff-side will go quite far in bringing the clan back to life. Players can't always be expected to know what they want to do next without -some- kind of guidance. It's like dropping us into a jungle and telling us to make a path through it. If we don't know what the possible paths are, and whether or not it's the right direction in the first place, it won't be long before we start giving up from frustration. And once we start on a path, prodding us in the right direction now and then, or dropping us crumbs to follow or better tools to work with will do wonders. A good way to put it is for staff to possibly be more "inventively reactive".

I believe that staff are already very inventively reactive. But if you have not updated me on your plot to kidnap Lady Fale in a few weeks, why should I try to spice up that plot rather than putting the time I have to spend staffing this week toward animating at an RPT where my attendance has been requested by some other players? We will always have an environment where staff time and attention are limited. I think it's unreasonable for players to expect that if they are lagging/slacking/dropping the ball on their end, staff will step in and "spice it up." We will react if you give us something to react to. I have plots right now in my clans which are languishing because I haven't heard from the players nor seen any action in weeks--sorry, but I am not the housekeeper/nanny and it's not my job to make sure that players drive their player-driven plots.

Squeaky wheel and all that. I'm not telling you to be obnoxious in your requests ("Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom!"), but if ye don't ask, ye shall not receive.

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 04:12:33 PMPlayer-run/initiated plots have one major down-side. They don't have the grand, over-arching perspective to things that staff have, and it's -hard- generating plots that are closely linked to game history and feels a part of the world, rather than contrived and forced. Much of this is due to the short life-span of players, but also the fact that we can't make characters that have their history, beginning from birth to their creation, and all the characters and elements that come with it. So the feud between Noble House X and Noble House Y will only continue so long as the present PCs are alive. Once they die, there's very little from them that will linger on for future PCs through their children, or from their servants, etc.
   Through staff animations, and responses to player-run plots, allowing these elements to crop into situations will help tie the plots more firmly into game history, give players much more of an investment in seeing things followed through to the end, and provide more over-arching plots that reach not only farther across, but deeper within organizations/clans themselves.

You're right. I agree with you generally. However--I will say--there are plots going on right now in the game that were not started by the PCs who are currently shepherding them along. If a plot is truly good and compelling, I think it will create its own momentum. I wish I could tell you that there was a policy solution to this conundrum, but I don't think there is.

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 04:12:33 PMOn a similar note, perhaps staff can provide more large, macro-level direction for player plots. It doesn't have to start from scratch, simply building on the plots that players are working with, and helping to remove the roofs from the possibilities to extent farther than players alone could do.

I think we do this already. Unless I am misunderstanding you. That's the heart of player-driven--taking something the PCs are doing and spinning off of it, building on top of it.

Quote from: Semper on September 16, 2010, 04:12:33 PMIt's constantly running into dead ends that causes player frustration with plots and with the staff.

I agree with you here. I think better documentation on the player-driven process, expectations, job descriptions and all that will help. Dead ends suck--I can't promise they won't ever happen anymore, but I'd love to see them reduced.

I read something pretty inspiring in one of my character books, and I'm gonna try at an "antagonist" character. I'll also transcribe the little bit from the book into a GDB post after work.

To restate a previous idea, I think that including recent events in documentation and randomly providing particularly information from a list to an accepted leader might be better off than giving them a general overview of their organization. I am not stating that the overview isn't necessary, it simply doesn't provide anything to hit the ground running with a leader.

I would suggest also a change to staff rotation, or at least how the staff and players approach this issue. Even with Imm-inspired plots of long ago, many plots simply seemed to die out after the staff had been replaced/retired. It's changed, but, not in a very helpful manner.

Comparison: Imm-driven plots versus PC-driven plots in the face of a staff rotation.

Imm-driven plots:

NPC: We need barracks. Build barracks.
-Staff rotation months later-
Character: "I've been working on building a new barracks for some tim-"
NPC: "Yeah, that fell through, sucks but YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIREEE!! FIRE-KANKS!!"
-Deals with fire-kank invasion, struggling for some months, staff rotation-
Character: "We've located the fire-kanks nest, and are prepared to in-"
NPC: "Fire-kanks? Why don't you worry about the vestric-zombies eating our gardens!"
Etc.

New policy, staff rotations:
NPC: I'd like to hear what you've been working on.
Character: "I've been working on building a new barracks for some tim-"
NPC: That fell through. What else you got?
Character: "I've been attempting to write up a contract to marry Senior Lad-"
NPC: "She's dead. What else you got?"
Character: "She's dead? Maybe I ought to investigate."
NPC: "Nah. Maybe not. Why aren't you keeping busy?"

While it might be somewhat exaggerated, it's based off things that have actually occurred to my characters, ICly, in both systems. I've attempted the whole 'write an e-mail explaining what you're doing thing' but at times it seems that it's easier to start with a blank page. It's understandable in terms of ease, but it certainly contributes to the sense of frustration. I would've loved to have actually sit down with someone and explain what I am doing, what my motivation are, why I did this or that – and move on from there. The staff doesn't have to comment on whether or not it's a good or bad thing that my character did X or Y, but it will give them a sense of the character's perspective, what's going on in the character/player's head (even if it's completely wrong) and give them a base point to start from.

That made me laugh, Decameron. Fire kanks, rofl.

Dec. made the post with most common damn sense here. Krath.

Quote from: Talia on September 16, 2010, 01:24:30 PM
You seem to equate fun with winning. They are not the same thing.

I equate fun with doing things.  'Winning' is just the motivation.

To put it another way, the more likely I believe I am to fail, the less likely I am to try.  It's basic human nature.  I will still play an indie merchant, but I'm not likely to try anything important with him.

Quote from: Talia
If what you're saying is that you want to be able to create plots AND you want to be guaranteed to win them AND you want staff to be primarily responsible for running them in a predictable manner...err. Wouldn't you rather just go play a video game? I don't mean to belittle your desires, but I do mean to say that you can't get what you want from ARM, if that is what you want.

What I'm saying is that the if the staff won't run plots and they want players to run plots, then they need to ENcourage rather than DIScourage.  Challenges are fun, but trying to do things on Arm frequently feels like an experiment in futility.  And, strangely, I thought Arm WAS a video game.

To be completely honest, I have little to add to what has already been said here other than a simple suggestion and a newb question.

If the staff want armageddon to be more player driven, then maybe they should allow higher-ups to be played by PCs.  I'm not suggesting someone lets me play as Tek, but (as a slightly tongue in cheek example) why not allow a PC to be the leader of the Byn?  They could suddenly declare war on another clan, resulting in mucho plot material and fun.  Dumb example, but if you want players to lead the world, let them.

Now the newb question.

What exactly is the difference between the glorious, exhalted plot and characters merely doing stuff?

I think the problem there is that, taking your example with Commander of the T'zai Byn, high player turnover clashes in a serious way with gameworld stability and consistency. On one hand, as a NPC, the Commander has persisted and will persist (in all likelihood) through the ages, outliving everything and everyone - tens of lieutenants, hundreds of sergeants, hundreds of thousands of millions of Runners and Troopers, etc. On the other hand, as a PC, he'd last all of a week or two before he got bored and went out to pwn some scrabs (and gets eaten by a grue.)

I have had a character that led the Byn.  I wouldn't recommend a return to that.

Player led plots doesn't mean clans led by players.

And it was a gwoshi, not a grue, incidentally.

Quote from: lordcooper on September 16, 2010, 06:38:22 PM
What exactly is the difference between the glorious, exhalted plot and characters merely doing stuff?

May I present to you the History page (http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/timeline.cgi)? Everything on there since

Quote1394: 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.

is history in which players participated and/or drove. Those are plots. None of those things were momentary events, they generally involved months of work and build-up on the part of players and staff.

Quote from: Twilight on September 16, 2010, 06:46:52 PM
I have had a character that led the Byn.  I wouldn't recommend a return to that.

Player led plots doesn't mean clans led by players.

And it was a gwoshi, not a grue, incidentally.

In your case, I'm assuming, you mean you played a sergeant in the T'zai Byn - and let's face it, as a sergeant, dying is acceptable; heck, it's expected. The clan itself remains intact and stable despite a high PC leadership turnover. But what he is suggesting is to completely disregard the glass ceiling and open all leadership to PCs (and, I imagine, put out special roles for PCs to immediately take over traditionally NPC held leadership positions.) Would it increase player-driven plots? Possibly. (But I doubt it.) And it would also lead to an inherently unstable system and tons of staff work, especially when the leader inevitably drove the clan into the ground.

That is a point brought up that I agree with.

I think players should be allowed to get to near the highest ranks in a clan.

But staff has been going the other way on the matter, which to me seemed pretty silly when you add in player/driven policy.

Not so high as black robe templar or commander of the byn etc, but red robes, captains.

The arguement of turnover does not really hold water. The players capable of working up from say runner to captain are the same ones that are capable of keeping a PC alive for RL years, and often do.

The times where players have been allowed to move up very high in a clan rank have usually resulted in these large plots that many people remember.

I appreciate you all for participating, thank you all for your varied input, and am locking this thread up now. (Again, not because anyone's done anything wrong or bad, just so the discussion can be said to be done for now rather than trailing on.) I've compiled your feedback and delivered it to the staff.