Plots. Railroading. Staff and YOU.

[Harmless]

Valeria's point that other players often being the source of a plot's failure is spot on. They make the same mistakes I make.

I don't know, I've never personally felt my plotlines got screwed without some rather serious blunders on my part. I really have no complaints about how my PCs are handled, sure a handful were killed by animations, Byn RPTs, etc. before I felt it was their time to go, but I also kind of saw it coming a mile away somehow and still blindly walked into it instead of following my gut instinct, so I can only blame myself, really. I feel like staff have, at times, gone out of their way to make my experience enjoyable, as well as gently poke me to remind me of the virtual world my PCs exist in (for some rather brazen and humorous errors), and the occasional not-so-gentle poke (when certainly warranted), which I'm all rather thankful for. Maybe I just haven't been around long enough to get jaded and cynical, but I'm having fun, so...

This is true, I too have never been ganked by the staff without plenty of advance warning.

But sometimes, I just want to -try- to prove them wrong... and I inevitably fail. Those staff animated things are just fucking deadly against 1 PC, there's really nothing you can do against it.

[senseofeven]

I got ganked by staff once (or a few times), but I pleaded mercy and they gave me a chance. But gosh that was fucking scary, IC and OOCly.

[Dresan]

I have no problems with staff run plots, railroaded or otherwise. My only issue with this plot was that it was originally presented in a way that made it seem as if players were able to accomplish what they did on their own with just a little skill and some luck, and anyone else could do it. I'm not talking about skill bumps, or picking the right people the staff trust so there is no ooc communication. I'm talking specifically bypassing the natural defenses of the setting which had for years prevented regular players from being able to attempt similar plots with any chance of success. This seemed biased and unfair.  Now it changed slightly, apparently the spies did get some help from staff, templars were indeed taken to account in some secret way, and/or perhaps tek gave his blessing in some secret way, shape or form. Great! The spies getting some help to bypass those defenses probably makes more sense to people who have played and accepted the rules of that setting for years. I'm not saying things haven't changed now, change is good, but that wasn't the situation when this plot was taking place.

This was all discussed in the previous thread, however the reason I brought it up originally was because I think even the perception of something being bias or unfair is dangerous to any game. The Armageddon community is made up of both staff and players, who dedicate a lot of their free time to make this game enjoyable. Some more then others, and to those people; kudos to you and thank you. However at the same time because this game sometimes demands so much time, passion and even commitment from the people involved it is not hard to image how resentment and anger can arise should they feel they've been cheated or treated unfairly. In the past it was easy to ignore these people, ban these people, or just laugh at them. This was not just Armageddon; companies, organizations, and corporations all could do the same. Well, welcome to the age of social media. It cost more money to wipe a person's ass for a month then it does to start a forum/blog or whatever. It is so easy to make your voice heard now, and for a community as small as Armageddon that voice is louder. Therefore, I got to say out all the possible arguments that people can use why in this green earth I cannot believe I'm seeing the "its only the vocal minority" line.  It almost never goes well for people (and companies) that have used this argument, it only pisses people off more which leads to greater backlash. My god, there is a reason companies have large PR departments, with large internet only divisions. We have already seen some of the resentment manifest itself elsewhere, there is no point in adding anymore fuel to that fire.

Before any of you try to beat me down for deciding to post on this forum, allowing issues to be address, or just plain show me the door; let me just tell you from my point of view it would be so much easier to keep my mouth shut and not participate at all. Writing this post is time consuming after all. It would be more beneficial to be a yes man or cheerleader, and then just roll my eyes behind my back, laughing while trying to see if I can land those 'trusted' roles . I truly believe there are people in this community right now that don't care whether this game last another ten year or another ten days at this point. I come and I go but I am not one of those people, I wish this game well so i take the time to write these posts, give ideas and feedback while I am around, its my way of saying thanks for the good times. I think most people taking the time to criticize and post are the same way for the most part.  At the very least I'm hoping I'll still be able to keep coming back and enjoying this twenty year old game for many more years to come.

**Lets out a long sigh before putting on his flame/snark/sarcastic resistant suit on**

[Barzalene]

Hopefully the responses will not be personal. You're asking questions about ideas, not people's moms.

[Harmless]

I am starting to think there is just a pressure release valve somewhere in the playerbase, where all the pent up frustration and disappointment over failure of their characters' lives and storylines builds up, and sometimes it just needs to be released, or sometimes something triggers the release of it all at once.

The log posted hits home for a lot of people, I think, because we have had similar goals as the spies, or similar approaches to our own goals, but we experienced failure. We know, intellectually, that there is are clear justifications for success the involved spies had vs. our own failures (roll call, tektolnes' support, Allanak's support, etc), but emotionally, we still feel like this is an example of staff bias somehow.

I am trying to say that the community's discontent over this log is more of an irrational, emotionally based one than an intellectual one. A lot of us, including me of course because I can only speak for myself, don't really have an intellectual debate with the log, we just have an emotional one, where we feel like "it sucks ass to keep losing, I keep losing in this game and I never win, and oh, here's an example of someone who won, but I'm not them and I may never be them." It just sucks, you know?

Edit: Let me clarify. It sucks, no matter what, to read about other peoples' success when you have never felt it. It's an immediate emotional response to seeing someone else having it better than you. I am NOT saying armageddon sucks (so don't go there, Nyr). I'm just describing a human emotional response to defeat, and I am pointing out that the log triggered that emotional response in a lot of us because it reminded us of our defeats. That's all. I'm trying to explain why the community is reacting the way it is.

[James de Monet]

It's a salient point about people who take the time to write logical posts taking an interest in the meta or mechanical well-being of the game.

Of course, just because one is taking an interest doesn't mean one is actually helping, per se, but it does generally point to good intentions.

[Harmless]

You know, there's a great Aldous Huxley quote here for this topic.

I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.

The times I enjoyed this game most were the times I cared least about changing the game world and making lasting impact. Sometimes, the impact and change happened by accident while I was in the middle of enjoying my character.

As I have been reminded of recently, the real point of this game is to enjoy your character and their interactions with the world. You only have control over your PC, but you have quite a lot of control over that PC. You can control them until their death, and make them take actions that puts them at immense risk. That's fun, it creates excitement and drama, even if in the end it doesn't amount to any permanent change.

So, my lesson for myself in all of this is that I need to refocus away on "getting things done" and back on "enjoying my PC and my RP."

[RogueGunslinger]

Have to agree with Dresan. Every mention of a "vocal minority" makes me want to slap the person using it or tear my own hair out.

It's deflection at best, and generally has nothing to do with solving problems and everything to do with brushing them off as unimportant. If only one player was having an issue with something I would still hope their interest in the game would warrant some attention and the problem attempted to be solved.


Harmless, for me at least, it's less about changing the world so much as it is about changing your own characters world. By all rights I should be able to purchase and set up a merchant stand/tent in the Bazaar. Hire a guard and a seller to hawk my items. But that's hard, that takes staff work, so it seems staff has policies in place that stop things like this from ever happening so they don't have to do that work. This is mostly what I got out of Nyr's responses but I could have misunderstood...

I just like knowing there's possibilities out there beyond "max out all my skills" or "Climb my clans ranks to arbitrary glass ceiling". Its those possibilities that inspire awesome character concepts and bring the world to life. I like to think we should be fostering THOSE sorts of experiences, because I think they would have to most positive impact on player enjoyment. I like to think my limitations in the game are set by the environment and my own creativity. Not by the number of staff who can be trusted to dish these experiences out.

[Nyr]

I have no problems with staff run plots, railroaded or otherwise. My only issue with this plot was that it was originally presented in a way that made it seem as if players were able to accomplish what they did on their own with just a little skill and some luck, and anyone else could do it. I'm not talking about skill bumps, or picking the right people the staff trust so there is no ooc communication. I'm talking specifically bypassing the natural defenses of the setting which had for years prevented regular players from being able to attempt similar plots with any chance of success. This seemed biased and unfair.  Now it changed slightly, apparently the spies did get some help from staff, templars were indeed taken to account in some secret way, and/or perhaps tek gave his blessing in some secret way, shape or form. Great! The spies getting some help to bypass those defenses probably makes more sense to people who have played and accepted the rules of that setting for years. I'm not saying things haven't changed now, change is good, but that wasn't the situation when this plot was taking place.

If that was your issue with the plot, it was covered in several places already, prior to the first log every being posted.  Nothing changed slightly, I just once more elaborated fter several previous explanations.

I went over what secret role calls entailed here.

To whit:

When we brought the roles on board, we set them up to be spies--basically, we did all of the work that would have happened if they'd become spies in-game, organically...except in advance. Once they were set up and dropped in-game, it was then left up to them.  Each one was given similar instructions but they were staggered for entry into the game, so none of them knew each other or even that the others were spies.  That all developed over time (though with some staff assistance).  It was touch and go several times.  Each one joined clans or what-not in Tuluk so as to infiltrate better (this was at staff suggestion initially).  One of them even became a Hlum Consort.  They all really brought the roles to life and became part of the local society.  At the very end of things, just before the HRPT, they were given specific tasks all related to the HRPT, and we let 'em fly.  At no point did they know this was leading to an HRPT (at least til the last week or two leading up to the HRPT).

and

In all cases so far, the roles have been:

• temporary -- they serve a specific plot function or are filling a temporary need in the game, at least as far as staff sees it.  The only way out of the role is storage or death, but the role is expected to store or die by a certain time.
• limited -- the role will be one in which your PC is serving a larger purpose, whether by living (and how he or she lives, usually within rules--mentioned below) or by dying (and how he or she dies).  That introduces more restrictions and expectations than a typical sponsored role.
• unusual in terms of sponsored roles -- they aren't quite sponsored, but they are filling a role similar to one, therefore they need to report and coordinate with staff.  They are held to some guidelines for documentation and sometimes have more strict adherence to that documentation than usual, but at times, they may face the opposite scenario, where what is traditional for a sponsored role just isn't the intention for this role at all.
• informed, but not omniscient -- they'll have more to go on based on background or just plain out information granted in order for them to see the role to completion, but they are not given the whole structure of the plot.
• not too far removed from the norm -- in that a normal PC, with enough time in a role, investment into roleplay, and communication with staff...could more than likely achieve the same results. The reason we did a secret role in any case was because no existing PC could have done it as they weren't at that point, and even a brand new PC started in a normal role would not have been able to do it.
• rare -- they will be few and far between.

and

How likely are staff to intervene when someone figures out a Secret Plot Character is a Secret Plot Character, and begins taking steps to defeat them (or just flat out PKs them)?

I would say it is unlikely that we would intervene in such cases. Thus far, anyone in a secret role position had either the skills or the resources to back up their role, plus (we hoped) the RP chops to deal with the very real possibility that people could well screw them over.

I posted the first log, and responded with this to you first:

I understand what you are saying and it does makes for a more interesting and fun game. However, it does feel like in this case some of Tuluk's natural defenses against this sort of thing was overlooked in favor of providing a more enjoyable experience, namely the vnpc and npc templar presence. Again its fair what you said, the place is full of people, you can't expect to investigate everyone's history thoroughly if there was no reason back then, it makes sense.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.  I think you are ascribing godlike powers or impassible barriers to entry for either city-state.  I think you are also assuming that the virtual world and NPC templars weren't taken into account.  Both assumptions are incorrect.  Given your restating of your cynicism I'm not sure why you would believe this but take it for what it is worth.

...and laid the following out when you questioned it there.  Colored and embiggened because, apparently, me laying it out later wasn't enough:

I don't know. If there happened to be a mindbender around I suspect they should have had an easy time figuring out what was going on, at the very least I think they should have. However, its just  lucky there were no mindbenders around in the entire city at the time I suppose.

Have you ever heard of the term 'security through obscurity?'  Don't look like something you need to target and you won't be targeted.  It doesn't always work, but there you have it.

These were spies. They went in with a specific mission, but their primary purpose before being told their later goals was "avoid the notice of the templarate" and they were given specific instructions representing years of training. As I said earlier, we expected at least one of them to get caught at some point, likely due to a screwup.  The whole point of being a spy is to avoid notice.  If you have a templar interrogating you, you are boned (I believe we went so far as to let each player know that if they ever got interrogated, they had essentially lost).  Again, spy operation, compartmentalization of activities, etc...a lot was taken from fictional and real world accounts of how such things would work.  For instance, as the plot and game progressed, each spy grew to know each other spy, so that was one more area of implication they could provide if they were ever interrogated...but they weren't, because they seemed normal, because they passed muster, etc. 

You don't investigate people that seem normal, do you?  Except...now, in Tuluk...you might.  Because of this.  This was also an intentional part of the plot--if the spies had been all captured/killed, we would've rolled with it and that would've made things amp up faster as far as Tuluki oppression PRIOR to the battle at Tyn Dashra...but that didn't happen, so we were able to utilize it later.  This will (probably) be harder in the future because of the notoriety of this particular case, but certainly not impossible.

Each one had specific instructions to initially observe and report. They had to blend in and escape notice.  And they did. 

So I don't really buy that it was laid out differently until I posted this post, which if you read, I even sardonically questioned "wait, are we maintaining that?" and proceeded to show more of what we did that had already been explained to some degree in the past.

You might've had an issue with the plot until learning otherwise, but that doesn't mean you didn't get told repeatedly that "otherwise" was indeed the case.

Therefore, I got to say out all the possible arguments that people can use why in this green earth I cannot believe I'm seeing the "its only the vocal minority" line.

It was literally the case.  A vocal (read:  people willing to actually say something, said something) minority (read: less than the total amount of other posters in the thread) were dominating the discussion in the thread even though it was tangential to the thread.  Therefore I addressed the literal case towards the vocal minority, that is to say, three or four posters that saw it to be their duty to point out the fallacy of the plot and cry about bias and unfairness when I specifically did preparatory work elsewhere and in that thread to explain some details that should (in a rational world) make sense, and allay concerns in advance of more story-centric logs.

[Lizzie]

I agree that there's bias and favoritism and unfairness. I don't agree that it's dangerous to the game. In fact, I'd rather the staff favor a stellar roleplayer with stellar roles, than give stellar roles to random dorf amos teh lil teefy guy out of "fairness." What's fair to the game, isn't necessarily what's fair to individual players. We'll all have our turn at being butt-hurt, and we'll all get over it. In that sense, it IS fair.

[Nyr]

Harmless, for me at least, it's less about changing the world so much as it is about changing your own characters world. By all rights I should be able to purchase and set up a merchant stand/tent in the Bazaar. Hire a guard and a seller to hawk my items. But that's hard, that takes staff work, so it seems staff has policies in place that stop things like this from ever happening so they don't have to do that work. This is mostly what I got out of Nyr's responses but I could have misunderstood...

I think it is possible that you misunderstood, or at least oversimplified the response.

By all rights you feel that you should be able to purchase and set up a merchant stand/tent in the Bazaar.  However, we don't have code for that to occur without staff involvement.  If we code it it will be coded for all players and not just you, so that's an obstacle to overcome.  With that in mind, making that decision for your character and your plans means making that decision for you and no one else (or developing a policy to allow for the work involved in it, if one does not exist).  Should you have such a desire, you can interact with staff and we can see what is possible, because there have (at rare times) been shops and buildings influenced by player action.  There's a larger reason for not having a ton of player-created shops out there, by the way--both city-states already have a stable of shops.  Just like with player-sponsored building projects, we have to assess whether it's just being added because the player wants it, or whether it is also serving a need and whether it is adding to clutter for any particular region.  For example, if you're going to sell widgets at this player-created shop that you'll be loosely involved with, and another shop already sells widgets, do we then get rid of the other widget shop to prevent the inevitable clutter in whatever area's shopping center?  There is a lot of work that goes into even saying no, even if that work has been done in the past when developing a policy on why something isn't done.

However, to suggest we make policies just so we don't have to do work is untrue, through and through.

I just like knowing there's possibilities out there beyond "max out all my skills" or "Climb my clans ranks to arbitrary glass ceiling". Its those possibilities that inspire awesome character concepts and bring the world to life. I like to think we should be fostering THOSE sorts of experiences, because I think they would have to most positive impact on player enjoyment. I like to think my limitations in the game are set by the environment and my own creativity. Not by the number of staff who can be trusted to dish these experiences out.

Those possibilities are out there.  Talk with staff and we can work with you to come up with possibilities that will work for the game.

[RogueGunslinger]

Thank you for replying, Nyr. That actually pretty reassuring to hear.

[Dresan]

I found it funny, really, that two of the spy PCs managed to become members of the Bards of Poets' Circle.  It could only have been better if they'd been in a play about there being Allanaki spies in Tuluk vanquished by the Forces of Good.

My first two posts I wrote about the plot were mostly in response to this post. And while yes the other post where you explain the plots in general came before that, looking them over even now does not fully address the issue I was having with the plot. You can go back to the original thread and see for yourself. Franky the only thing I need to hear was that in this situation 'the Templar and thus the natural defenses tuluk has were indeed taken into account' which was basically by yourself. And then hinted at again by Marauder Moe. Basically the moment you elaborated, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, at which point you'll notice I stopped posting all together on the matter.


 

So I don't really buy that it was laid out differently until I posted this post, which if you read, I even sardonically questioned "wait, are we maintaining that?" and proceeded to show more of what we did that had already been explained to some degree in the past.

You might've had an issue with the plot until learning otherwise, but that doesn't mean you didn't get told repeatedly that "otherwise" was indeed the case.

Again I'm reading those 'otherwise' over and they are generalized enough that I feel they didn't address what I was saying about the plot. That said I don't doubt when you say that was your intention for posting this preparatory work in first place though, but I wasn't alone in my thoughts at the end. I don't think would the discussion have turned into what it did otherwise either. Instead of saying 'laid out different', how about we just say 'it was elaborated on more so that there would be no more doubt'. It would be nice to remain positive after all

All I'm saying is that I would personally not be saying something like 'vocal minority' especially considering the size of the player-base and the amount of people that even bother to post on this particular forum. It is also a very dismissive way of looking at people's argument, opinions and ideas even if they are only a few people and I've seen it backfire so many times.  Its just a thought though.

[Harmless]

I agree that there's bias and favoritism and unfairness. I don't agree that it's dangerous to the game. In fact, I'd rather the staff favor a stellar roleplayer with stellar roles, than give stellar roles to random dorf amos teh lil teefy guy out of "fairness." What's fair to the game, isn't necessarily what's fair to individual players. We'll all have our turn at being butt-hurt, and we'll all get over it. In that sense, it IS fair.

Woo. Lizzie, you and I tend to have opposite views in some areas, and I'm really going to have to disagree with you here. What you're describing is the worst kind of favoritism, elitism, and that's not fair.

For the record, i don't think that these logs show any kind of favoritism. There was a role call, it was applied for, players were selected... Then the rest is history. I don't want "random" assignment of powerful roles, but I don't want favoritism either. I like role apps because some apps will be better than others. I don't want staff thinking it's okay to just hand out the roles to their buddies, and the same goes for karma. I still have some big fat fucking beefs with how karma gets handed out, for instance.

[valeria]

I've moved you modular housing folks off into your own thread here, since it was starting to take over the discussion and I think it merits its own thread.

[Nyr]

I still have some big fat fucking beefs with how karma gets handed out, for instance.

Staff rewards karma based on the helpfile here.  The sticking point that may exist is that staff rewards that karma based on staff assessment, not player self-assessment.

[bcw81]

I still have some big fat fucking beefs with how karma gets handed out, for instance.

Staff rewards karma based on the helpfile here.  The sticking point that may exist is that staff rewards that karma based on staff assessment, not player self-assessment.

I'm kind of curious if player kudos counts towards what staff think of in giving out karma.

[palomar]

I still have some big fat fucking beefs with how karma gets handed out, for instance.

Staff rewards karma based on the helpfile here.  The sticking point that may exist is that staff rewards that karma based on staff assessment, not player self-assessment.

I'm kind of curious if player kudos counts towards what staff think of in giving out karma.

I've been told in at least one reply that my kudos made staff review the recipient's karma. I assume it depends more on the situation/why the kudos were sent than the mere number of kudos received.

[Lizzie]

I agree that there's bias and favoritism and unfairness. I don't agree that it's dangerous to the game. In fact, I'd rather the staff favor a stellar roleplayer with stellar roles, than give stellar roles to random dorf amos teh lil teefy guy out of "fairness." What's fair to the game, isn't necessarily what's fair to individual players. We'll all have our turn at being butt-hurt, and we'll all get over it. In that sense, it IS fair.

Woo. Lizzie, you and I tend to have opposite views in some areas, and I'm really going to have to disagree with you here. What you're describing is the worst kind of favoritism, elitism, and that's not fair.

For the record, i don't think that these logs show any kind of favoritism. There was a role call, it was applied for, players were selected... Then the rest is history. I don't want "random" assignment of powerful roles, but I don't want favoritism either. I like role apps because some apps will be better than others. I don't want staff thinking it's okay to just hand out the roles to their buddies, and the same goes for karma. I still have some big fat fucking beefs with how karma gets handed out, for instance.

A role call applied for by "x" number of players, and the staff picked which two they wanted to have those roles.  That means, they picked which of the ones available THEY wanted. Picking two based on what's "fair" to this or that player would have resulted in a totally different situation than picking which ones they felt were the most appropriate to play the role. What's fair and what's appropriate aren't always the same thing. That's what I'm saying. You might disagree with that, but it won't change the fact, since that isn't my opinion. It's a fact. What's fair and what's appropriate aren't always the same thing. My opinion is that I'm okay with that fact.

[Harmless]

Liz, I think what I'm getting at is your wording of "staff favoring a stellar roleplayer with stellar roles." I think it's fine to select players for roles based on who is appropriate for the role, but I don't want an opinion of who a stellar roleplayer is to determine who gets "stellar" roles, whatever that means (roles with lots of power? etc). I think that there are different roleplaying styles, and then there's various levels of skill and familiarity with handling certain types of roles, and there's familiarity with the setting. No one of those axes directly leads to "stellar roleplayer" in my mind. There's proficiency with the setting and a role and then there's a role call looking for whoever fits that best. At no point in that process should there be the statement, "Well, this guy is a good roleplayer, so let's go with them." "Good" is a valuative statement, and not everyone will agree on what's good. There are more objective subskills and areas of roleplay where it is appropriate to decide.

I think you and I are agreeing on everything except wording.

[Zoan]

I love the Sun King.

I LOVE THE SUN KING.

I LOVE THE SUN KING!!!

[bcw81]

I love the Sun King.

I LOVE THE SUN KING.

I LOVE THE SUN KING!!!

And the Sun King loves you.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I love the Sun King.

I LOVE THE SUN KING.

I LOVE THE SUN KING!!!

And the Sun King loves you.

fuck the sun king (notice that he deserves neither caps nor punctuation)

[bcw81]

I love the Sun King.

I LOVE THE SUN KING.

I LOVE THE SUN KING!!!

And the Sun King loves you.

fuck the sun king (notice that he deserves neither caps nor punctuation)

He loves you.

[James de Monet]

I wrote a response to this detailing how people probably perceive me in the "cheerleader" camp, and why I feel that particular dysphemism is a little inaccurate and how there is merit to having players in said camp.

But...it might be a moot point now, so I'll leave you with this instead: