I've been on the receiving end of you not liking being poked about something, Tormak... And naming names did not get me anywhere!

Edit: point being: sometimes it does affect relationships in a way you don't want it to and I respect Eurgiga's decision to not state it.

Tormak is right, please let one of us know.

_________________
Eli Hodgewall <{/,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X
Sven <=={o===========>
Qeelak \ | / ,

Points for consideration:

A. Players themselves, on the forums most notably will at times, instantly disagree with something without giving any reason as to why, or thought at all for that matter. (This is how you bring out my sarcastic side. )

B. DM's of the past have actually done things the current DM team openly now (finally in some of our minds) condemned outright. That's progress, but there's still old wounds out there and lingering suspicions.

C. Often, I think the view of a random poster new to forums (and perhaps arguing with people in general) is put off by posting much because they feel they'll get instantly trashed publicly, and judged, and then there's also that annoying group of suck-ups who will just insta-side with and praise whatever any (person with) DM (next to their name) happened to say even if it was they just took a crap in the loo. (The bow-down worship mentality, isn't good imo, and very much creates the 'us vs them' mindset). As well many feel like if they disagreed with a DM on the forums and had a debate, well then there's the fear DM's might get mad and then requests might not get approved, less DC's and so on and so forth. (hopefully unfounded fears)

D. As an older player, I've done the song and dance, written thousands of words in essays on things like the server environment and how it's (and isn't) being handled and actually I found some DM's more recently have agreed on a few points. (In the (years ago) past I felt simply ignored). My biggest server issue: Amia lacks meaningful player-driven conflict. (This is very much involving how players react OOCly to what's occurring to their toons IC, not just a DM thing, although DM's account for the NPC environment encouraging one way or the other)

Both sides involved on this one, and happy to report some things are in the works.
(I just hope it doesn't take years, and p.s. Where Is Our IG War? C'mon super power nations, start some crap! )

E. ...a peaceful game,.... is.... -a boring game. *yawn*
(And I don't think it's frankly fair that DM's should be the only one's causing any interesting conflict, (given the numbers) sounds unending tiring and eventually overworked) Players need better encouragement and platforms to support and cause meaningful conflict and changes IG. (and more information IG on cities/factions/locations/ect paths to positions and roles of influence in different areas). I also have a concern when it comes to NPC's (played by DM's) overriding the player-driven actions IG (for better or worse). If there's an elected council/group let them do their thing (If the city blows up as a result of their actions, Good! Yay!!! Interesting Conflict. So boring when a NPC 'leader' says 'no' and the whole thing just goes to nothing *zzz* That's not the most fun option!

It's my firm position that DM's should encourage and empower the players, and through this players are happier, (with now less demanding-direct-front-line work, cause players are doing it instead) DM's are then happier, and the game is more enjoyable.

( the obvious disclaimer) All of the above, is, of course, my opinion.

Feel free to agree or disagree, but state the why. I work in logical 'xyz' is why I feel/think/believe 'abc' format.

p.s. #2, my most recent (over a) month+ break was due to player ooc reactions (not dm ones), games are supposed to be fun to play, and I have more than one to play on sufficient demand.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

A good read Alkor. I don't agree to every point you make but putting your thoughts up like this is a good thing and food for thought.

D. There is quite some player conflict but a lot of is like a game of chess and you don't always see the struggles. Several of the current factions/ groups are at each others throat but the fighting is done in the shadows with flashing knives instead of openly marching to war.

NPC's have their own agenda's in many cases and they should not always cave to a pc's desires. Finding out what an npc wants is part of the game if you want something from said NPC or want him/ her to do something.

I am certain many players would love more open wars but I am equally sure many players would hate it as they prefer peace or wars fought in the shadows and at the diplomacy table.

Blowing up cities isnt too feasable as the dev team can't keep with that if it happens too much (Its a LOT of work to acomodate changes in the mod so we need to be fairly conservative) and blowing up a city can be done in one event, rebuilding would take years so you'd run out of cities eventually. Fun is important but we have to consider everyone's fun and that includes players who'd rather not constantly rebuild their home to have it blown up again and the builders.

So I hope you realise our hands are tied to an extend.

_________________
Characters played:

Harold Kendry (Illusionist) -> see avatar
Elloanore (Travelling bard)

I call this pre-war, in the works xP



As a game, it's not limited to one or the either, it can do both quite well, one major power might be at war with another, but then there's more than two and how do they respond. -After the fighting between the main groups they can work out uneasy peace treaties with listed terms and so forth to return back to the cloak and dagger stuff. The question to ask is 'when was the last time there was an open war?' ... has it been years? I think it's due for a mix up of pace. However the point below is noted:



Blowing up cities is one outcome, but I'm more concerned with the capturing and taking of said cities. It can also be the result of (sometimes years) of plotting/planning/IG/work. The redrawing of the established lines of power, all as a result of player IG actions and DM support where effort is given. If it's just rubble, that's not too much to work with in the aftermath, more interesting is the role-play that occurs there after occupation. (Who rules it after, and roleplays IG, is quite important). The aim is the interesting conflict, not a wasteland, afterall.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

The difficulty of influencing the world we play in is the prime reason for most of my absences from Amia. I am a huge fan of conflict driven RP and my characters are almost always motivated by goals that would have them affect their environment or other characters in ways that are not really viable on Amia, so I tend to disappear periodically when I get too fed up with the strong Status Quo. I am however aware that making Amia cater more to my needs is likely unfeasible both due to a large number of players enjoying a static setting to do social RP in and significant consequences for player driven conflict requiring a lot of work.

I really appreciate Alkor putting the awesomeness of conflict-driven RP into words here.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

(An example that was just too good not to post)

Cordor Citizenship Exam; ...are the answers to every question on this test available IG yet? (Whether that be in the library, or at local city npcs?)

Then expand that theme, the question is how to get players more involved and immersed and then making a difference. 2% citizens 98% 'adventurers' is a bad ratio.

Example Cordor#2: Not a citizen? GLHF running for 'election' as a non-citizen..??? >,< You see the point I'm driving there... (hopefully).

That would apply to all cities/towns/ect as well though. Allowing players to get into the platform, represent and work for cities/towns, then be able to interact with others who represent other cities/towns. -and make decisions on behalf of those towns, -and then, ahha, you have active politics. We have some of this, true, I'm of the opinion more the merrier. Too many unused places and no PC's representing them. (Why PC's? ...because NPC's tend to just stand there, and DM's are quite too few and too busy to represent every single one in an active manner).

If players feel powerless, and DM's are the only ones running the show, then what are we left with? ..DM's just doing all the entertaining and everyone else bored until they (the DM's) do something? (then guess who gets 100% the blame for anything that ever happens? (from any base that ever takes a blow?) ..then that discourages anything from ever happening)
(Simple math will tell you boredom would be on the rise and that's handing the DM's an impossible task) Much better to have players do the entertaining conflict and DM's simply supporting it.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

I think much of what you are describing is already there Alkor.

All of the strong settlements (Wiltun, Tarkuul, Kohlingen and Cordor) have pc's authorised to represent them by an npc in power. There is a staggering amount of diplomacy going on but unless you can peek in the right forums you won't see much of it.
It does take time and dedication to rise to such positions though moreso because those (the pc's) that are already there have little reason to step back for the new blood (Though they may take them under their wing if they get along.) and getting such a position in more then one place for the same toon is next to impossible.

Smaller settlements can be more easily controlled by pc's, Bendir being an exemple there with the pc mayor being the boss.
Wharftown I think is very heavily influenced by pc's and Winya is all but ruled by pc's as well. And those are just exemples, I am quite sure more settlements have vast PC in power presences.

I don't think any DM wants to block pc's from rising in power in the cities though the pc has to act approriately (EvilMCGee won't get far in Kolhingen, Nick the Noble better stay out of Cordor and Bertrand the shiny better keep his nose out of Tarkuul.) but with time and dedication I think much is possible.

_________________
Characters played:

Harold Kendry (Illusionist) -> see avatar
Elloanore (Travelling bard)

I've noticed a lot more calls offering help this month as well as more DM's on and running things, so kudos to all. Also, got the impression of lots of work behind the scenes going on with hak updates so exciting times ahead. Great Job.

Yeah, there is a lot of stuff coming, it just takes a while.

Before the comments I want you to know I just mean to be honest (sometimes blunt honest), but not rude.



Yes please, having some more open conflict between factions and players would be a treat for me. I know it may promote powerbuilding, and that it can get tiring if you don't get breaks, but it's certainly better than having everything decided through politics. Besides not all characters are made to act in the hidden, some characters are meant for bashing their enemies out in the open. I miss the time before, when conflict were more common, and so were the dangers for my character. Besides PvP is a much better rush and a lot more interesting than PvE.



Sorry but..have the DM's been any better? look at the Shrine.

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition

I would be perfectly fine with seeing more open conflict. But the mentality of Amians has to change to see it be anything other than hurt feelings and complaints. I've played on both ends of the alignment spectrum, I've overseen conflict as both a DM and a player-- And the way that folks treat conflict is why conflict is so rare.

People ask for it frequently, when the server hits stagnation. And when it arrives, we see a massive rise in complaints.

Mentalities like this:

- are incredibly damaging to the potential for server conflict. I see characters all the time wielding a massive ego-- they're willing to kill or be killed for a simple insult! Or to face death when they encounter something against their Code-- but then it becomes the bad guy's fault? What? I understand the fine line between PvP baiting and substantial conflict, but unless this mentality changes-- no one is going to want to play a bad guy.

I've seen attempts to highlight character ego, and instead of seeing any IC change when their characters were beaten, players were quicker to resort to OOC complaints instead.

I've seen it happen, and experienced it myself.
~~~

Open Player Conflict won't occur on its own until the players involved are more receptive towards conflict-starters.

That's not to say, however, that the current conflict paradigm sits solely upon the shoulders of good guys. I have seen frequently-- and there have been consequences-- to other proponents of conflict that instead of stirring something captivating, emotionally challenging, etc, etc-- it becomes dry, repetitive, and frustrating.

I understand this to be a more dynamic dilemma than 'The good guys are keepin' the bad guys down!' But there is a uniquely damaging trend of misplacing blame and a lack of cooperation.

I would appreciate it if my post in another thread about a different subject was not misused.

My post was crafted to explain the possibility of OOC player abuse of OOC mechanics. In other words, Player(s) A(BCD,etc) decides to stomp on other players because they know they can beat them and garner gold/loot from them by 'forcing' the other person into PvP conflict through various means.

My post was not, in any way, condemning bad guys. It was also not betraying any sort of 'mentality' as you are portraying it. I spoke nothing on egos and any such thing. It was merely speculation as to what could occur (and what would likely occur to some extent, as there are players out there that would abuse it). I also never once stated it was the 'bad guy's fault' in my examples (rather it's the player's fault for being an asshat); I was stating that the Paladin was being punished by the server. I thought that was obvious.

I hardly engage in PvP conflict because I detest it to a certain extent. I've even gone out of my way to avoid PvP conflict (including not PvPing someone that decided to summon an undead with my paladin in the party, I left instead) on various occasions. I also play evil characters (one or two that I consider the vilest of the vile) and I love the RP and conflict that comes with them. I love playing evil, it's so much fun. In fact, I agree that the server mentality on good/evil and conflicts needs to change; it's part of the reason my only real evil aspirations occur in the UD and why my Surface evil haven't taken their plans off the drawing board yet (because Good will hurf durf and swarm all over any sign of an evil threat; I've seen it happen from both sides).

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

Specifically, I chose your example because I wanted to highlight the curiosity that players or characters ever feel forced into PvP, especially when they are the aggressor. I understand what you were trying to demonstrate with your example, and that it was in an entirely different context than the current-- but I'm picking up on an element of it, and extrapolating it to a relevant conversation here.

The element I'm selecting is the belief that consequences, either material (Which is still IC) or emotional, are not the aggressors fault-- whether that aggressor was a goodly Paladin or a criminal. Which I'm highlighting as a dangerous mentality.

Ie: There is no OOC abuse of an OOC mechanic in the situation you described. There is an IC consequence, with IC rewards, to a situation that was a result of IC beliefs and tenets. And then, after all is said and done, it was mused that the consequences were not belonging to the man who chose to draw steel on an enemy. Whether or not you believed it was the server's responsibility, or the bad guy's responsibility-- you specifically leaned to the notion that it was not the paladin's fault that he attacked a necromancer and died.

And that's the belief I'm trying to expel. That's why your example is relevant. Its not something you were intentionally trying to say, and that's why I'm not holding you accountable. I think its something that people subconsciously believe, and I think its dangerous to a server environment.

Point of clarification:



Who is the asshat in this sentence? The player of ---...the bad guy? I'm very confused as to your meaning, and it wasn't obvious.

-and it's... the server's fault? the player of the paladin chose to play a paladin with said oaths, and react with pvp as he/she does?

I hope I'm just reading this wrong. Please clarify.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

If a player does X action because they want Y result and they cloak it in vague IC reasoning, they are being an asshat, that's what I meant. Essentially if the player is trying to bait people into PvP for the sole reason of trying to get items from them. That's OOC, not IC. I'm talking about OOC motives here, not IC ones.

I meant it was the 'server's fault' (technically how can anything be the server's fault, it's moreso the OOC mechanics of the server) because the player being baited is following their RP and loosing things of value because they followed their Code. There are ways to essentially force PvP on people, I was using loose reasonings because I don't want to go into them all. Obviously a Paladin would try to negotiate/disarm the evildoer by words rather than action, but there are times when diplomacy fails and it's either walk away (which in some instances could break their Code, like if they walk away from an innocent being mauled by an evildoer) or draw steel.

The point of the example was the illustrate the fact that the dropping of gold/items (moreso the latter) can in fact be abused, because a player can maliciously engage in PvP baiting (which is legal in the rules) for the sole OOC reason of getting valuable gear from other players. No, I'm not saying it would happen widescale, but as rules and everything are now it could and likely would happen to some extent.

For the record, I wholly believe there are times when the 'good guys' are the aggressors (I've seen it and heard about it). There's times when the 'bad guys' are the aggressors. In my example, however, the one who drew steel was not the aggressor; in fact the baiter is technically the aggressor as he is the one seeking to create PvP for the sole reason of getting that phat lewt from the victim. It's like a complicated robbery. PvP baiting, in my opinion, is in fact a slippery slope to stand on regardless of who is doing it, and does in fact make you the aggressor even if you are baiting someone else into attacking you.

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

Alright. You're speaking of a player maliciously PvP-Baiting to get items (The item part being the irrelevant part for this discussion, while it was the entirely relevant part for the last one). I didn't see that detailed in your example, so that's why I so vigorously opposed it. I think we agree that malicious PvP-Baiting is bad.

Its a tough thing to determine, but it is the other side of the coin. It becomes a chick or the egg problem that ultimately ends up in a vicious cycle. Good players may be taking conflict more OOCly than they should-- but they may equally be doing it in response to perceived malicious PvP-Baiting. Once anyone involved in player conflict starts to think that the other person is wielding their IC actions based on OOC motives, it becomes a shitshow. No matter which end of the spectrum you fall.

I can see why we were butting heads! You were trying to use the example when it was clear in your mind that there was a malicious player involved. And I was sitting here going, "Where is the -real- bad guy?!" And every effort to clear it up, didn't jump back to that base foundation until now. Just a miscommunication, then.

Elton John brings the mood.

More-so on previous points, I'd reference this topic as possible example of systematic factors. Here it seems players are complaining of being overwhelmed and feeling powerless, while DM's have so many plots, their heads can feel like their spinning trying to get it all organized.

To me, systematically, this seems (given information present) like the DM's are playing the role of conflict-starters in overdrive, while player's aren't filling the role of conflict starter. Yet, the results, as seen in topic, are some groups stressed out with too much to do while others feeling perhaps like they can't get involved or do much at all.

As said in the topic referenced though, a lot of older plots are coming to fruition, but this doesn't seem just a recent theme to me. I almost would describe it as DM's are playing the role of life-support-conflict-starter (because no one else is, as it's often sadly, not enjoyable for conflict-starters to play the role, [given several factors but most notably ooc reactions]).

Hard to prove causation without digging more, but if the impression I have holds true, it will be recurring and there would be more threads like it. (and more in the past as well to find)

The psychological difference is; If a player faction hit part of your base as a player, well you know who's IC arse to go kick, or, you have some IC investigating that happens in real-time among the players to find out who did. If a DM hits a base (even small pokes), you're waiting for the DM to do tons of work to coordinate the event, make sure everyone's updated, and then lead them as the plot progresses. The reality is players are adapt at constant immersive rp, there's more of them, and they have varying timezones, and when dealing with fellow players the feeling of powerlessness is greatly diminished.

I'm totally fine with a DM running a server-wide plot center stage, but that shouldn't be the -core- of everything (conflict-wise) happening on the server. It should be an interesting event that adds to the server. The core of RP should be with the players.

(So that systematically.. Players can then entertain Players instead of just DM's entertaining players 24/7, then players aren't constantly waiting on overworked DM's before progression occurs)

Again, all of the above, is in my opinion.
(but I hope I change a few minds by writing all of this )

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.

Hah, leave it to good ol' one missing piece of info haha. No worries, and just to clear the air I wasn't upset or anything, I just went into Debate Mode, heh.

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

Player based conflict can't really be a thing if there is no consequence. That may be construed to mean that I support PC-oriented conflict having module impacting results, but I mean the opposite in fact. By consequence, I mean PC consequence. As long as you can die as much as you want, and the worst that happens is the PC sits there 'dead' for 5 minutes, there can be no PC-based conflict that means anything. I don't really mean to make this about harsher death penalties, as the general opinions have been made quite clear (even infinitely available IG gold is absolutely sacrosanct), but it does come down to that. As long as PCs are untouchable, it's entirely unfair to expect them to have impact.

In broader terms, PCs tend to like to destroy far more than they like to build... and destroying is far quicker. If PC actions were really followed, I think the entire game-world would be destroyed inside of a day. That may not apply to 'you' (being a general 'you'), but I'm sure you can think of someone it does. For every person that cares more about occupying a city, there's at least a few that would just blow it up. Players are just notoriously short sighted (again, don't take that personally... blame the terrible people that never check the forums if you want, but it's just a general statement, that is in large part true). And it's *hard* to come up with interesting, long term, reactive, and inclusive plot lines. Server impacting plot lines are best left to a handful that all talk to each other, if there is to be any sort of cohesive and long term story.

Slightly snarky, but I think this image is applicable. And you know it's true.

_________________

Love you hackums.


Back in the heydays of EO there were counter-examples to this. I REALLY liked playing with the evil necromancers and Banites and all kinds of cultists back then who were very good, cunning and courteous with their villainous RP and the conflicts we had with them. One could argue the EO was another villain faction too, from the gigglehugglepoking viewpoint. In any case, we did have mutual respect between the players of EO guys burning heretics and the villains we were in conflict with. I really want to take a moment to say something positive about people who have done a lot of PvP and conflicts for once, because I can't remember a single captured necromancer who wasn't a cool guy OOC or a single villain who wasn't awesome in how they attacked us. There probably were bad cases too, but they were insignificant enough that I do not even remember them anymore.

Most of the villain players from back then seem to have disappeared while I was away though. I suppose they ran out of conflict-enjoying good guys and left when there was no one they could enjoy fighting against. With the EO we got kind of bored with both killing the same necromancer the thousandth time and being killed in turn the thousandth time with no real consequences as well. The same with making the hundredth plan against an evil base or defending a goody-two-shoes location against the bad guys for the hundredth time, with no consequences in either case.

i ended up playing EVE Online, which did and still does appeal to my taste for a living player-shaped universe and a player-driven sandbox. Getting my real story-generating gaming done there means I can enjoy Amia too again without getting as frustrated as I have gotten in the past.

EDIT: Casvenx a thousnad times YES. CONSEQUENSES CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES. This applies to both player to player and player to world interaction. Also one of the reasons why I am so insistent about dead players dropping loot or any other consequences for death. Consequences make stories come alive. Risks give actions meaning. In EVE when you undock in a spaceship that ship will be gone forever if you fail and get shot down. If you took that risk to defend a solar system, you may be losing more than a just the ship. That system might have important resources or industrial facilities where ships of that type are manufactured by your industrialist friends, and for the next battle that ship may not be as affordable anymore.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

I'm going to bring up something entirely different from the points I'm reading.

I feel there's a lot of 'under the surface' tension concerning DC droppage. I will speak to the matter from my own personal experience, as I have been on both ends of the spectrum with Corinn.

When I was with the 'in' group, I could barely log a session without a DC being dropped on me for something I felt I didn't deserve it for- war planning meetings, meetings in general, other meetings... a lot of meetings, really. But little things as well- small interactions that I felt were nothing special would often get a DC dropped on me. Through it all I felt... guilty, I suppose. It was part of what really got to me and made me leave a while back; it just didn't feel right when I knew what things were like before that.

Beforehand I was lucky to see a DC in a month, though I really was doing about the same things. It literally appeared to be a function of which people I hung out with, and I can't tell you how much that irked me. I don't know why it seemed that way, or if my own memory is skewed (it probably is, though not that badly!). I just know I went from getting a trickle to getting a flood and I felt like I was benefiting at the expense of other players who could've used the attention more.

While a skewed distribution is obviously not the intent or goal of the DMs, the impression is nonetheless out there. Suggestions like "use your wands" are nice, but I often do already. Additionally, I feel it would be unfair to place the sole burden of resolving this on the players- they are not responsible for the disparity.

Is there anything further we can do as players? Is there something I'm missing? I'm unsure how this could be resolved other than increased diligence on the part of the DMs (who I can assure you are trying their damndest already).

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

It may not be very helpful, Eurgiga, but I like to be bold and try to roleplay with somebody that appears to have nothing else to do, or is in that group of people you feel (like I do) is being left out by lack of association. And then if I like what happens and enjoy it, I bypass the wand altogether and ask the DMs to please give a DC to the player in my own words. Thus I put the onus for that on me to be more inclusive, rather than expecting DMs to be more...observant, I guess?

But then, I play a character who doesn't have a problem approaching strangers and engaging in conversation. Individual mileage may vary.

I often find myself not knowing when to bump or poke DMs....we all know they are busy people and things get lost in all the posts and messages, but we are screwed no matter what we do, if we don't poke or bump then they wont reply... and if we keep trying to bump/poke it will end up pissing them off and they might just say no to make you go away.

I made a request for some boots that I'm still waiting on a reply about because the DMs said some testing was going on and to wait as they would effect the outcome of the request more or less, when and how often should I be raising it from the dead?

Another is just of late about shifter powers and my desire to increase them and Hudson gave a reply it was short and to a the point "Sorry, I know little of shifters and even less of Cory. " and that is fine and fully understandable , I would rather a reply so I know they saw the topic and if they can or can't assist in it instead of feeling the need to keep bumping it till more/different DMs reply to it as it slowly sinks away to lower part of the list again.


I'm sure others feel the same that they would rather a reply to see the DM looked it over and cant help then for them to not post at all, just something to keep in mind.

_________________
================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================
Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)

Regarding busy dm's and bumping/poking them.

I know I am an impatient man; And it is both reflected here on the forums and in-game. But I can possibly say that whilst impatience is seen as a negative feat; on Amia it can be positive.
Especially in the underdark community.

I know some people HATE me for nagging and bumping and nudging topics over and over and over; but eventually I get a response for X and then the plot can move forward.
There's nothing wrong with doing the same with DM's (Albeit a little more scarce)

_________________
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/tool/characterbuildcalculator-nwn2-cbc2