_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

Individual questions will not be answered here. Only opinions for players to give feedback. Responses from the DM not guaranteed. Send individual questions to the DM team. People who sass, snark, are disrespectful or rude to other posters, staff or otherwise, may get some cooldown forum bans.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

Suggestion / Opinion: Give all the Amians a few days to get adjusted to this rule that they may or may not have been aware of before seriously cracking down on the rule.

_________________

Hork the Ork - Barbarian Ogrillion. [ac]
June Lucaus - Division One Marksmen.

Available RP Times : Weekdays [4:30 PM - 10:30 PM]
Weekends [10:00 AM - whenever.]

[/ac]

Does this count for grandfathered characters? Does something have to be resubmitted for it to be considered valid again?

_________________

PM a DM Alanna, BoB said :

_________________

Hork the Ork - Barbarian Ogrillion. [ac]
June Lucaus - Division One Marksmen.

Available RP Times : Weekdays [4:30 PM - 10:30 PM]
Weekends [10:00 AM - whenever.]

[/ac]

The us vs them mentality, if it does exist didn't materialize out of nothing. Certainly something done, or being done must've sparked it.

It's not a discussion if half of the party doesn't show up.

_________________
bad man

While I have increasingly less stakes and investment in what's going on with Amia, I'll provide an opinion that might expand beyond both present camps.

Part of my recent frustration with staff initiatives was precisely in line with sentiments Bravo mentioned earlier: I grew increasingly worried and frustrated with certain rulemakers deciding to enforce opinionated lore stances as hard fact, and to exert a greater control on the quality of RP. I've always stood adamantly on the side of laissez-faire administration, believing that the core elements of player freedom and a relaxed DM team in regards to enforceable standards was the pinnacle of Amian server character.

And though I'm still rather distant from this server these days, it's something I still do worry about in the back of my mind. Making certain changes that encroach on this fundamental 'character' of Amia is dangerous to its health. Yes, the staff has the full authority to do so. But it should strongly consider the impact.

That being said... I don't think these current rules/reminders are too far out of place. The Nobility is understandable in terms of DM/Player cooperation for NPC influence and titles. The PnP Class approval rule, while encroaching on the sentiment of player freedom, still provides a large framework to work within. I do, however, question the hesitancy for PnP class emulation when spellcasters can at ease use abilities and spells outside of NWN without any request.

Is there any real difference? Or is this rule for PnP base/prestige classes only referring to mechanical representations-- and thus allowing for the Rp of PnP classes similar to the way in which players request the ability to use PnP spells. If not, I fear there's a roaring inconsistency. Classes mean very little outside of the abilities they have available to them (Without these, a class is just a title). So if the RP'd abilities of a prestige warrior class are unallowed period because they do not exist within NWN, but then a PnP Wizard's spellbook is still allowed with only a request for local permission, I see a problem.

A solution could be to allow PnP Base/Prestige class abilities to be used based on local permission, rather than request. And if a request must still be pursued, the staff should take extra measures to limit the severity of such requests-- keeping them limited to say, 3 paragraphs. And quickly moving them along.

In short, I would rather see consistency across all classes/players in terms of PnP. There's no reason that spellcasters should be able to dip into PnP by simply asking permission from players, while other characters are restricted to accessing only NWN mechanics. It should either be allowed wholesale, or restricted the same.

That is why I posted in this thread and not the original announcement. This question is applicable to a broad range of characters and should be answered by the team in public, not in PMs, to avoid confusion.

_________________

My feelings of the rules in question are not that we are intending to tell anyone "no" outright for wanting to play a fun, engaging, and unique character from a noble background or using a special PrC, but rather that we are more aware of it and get to know your characters for what they are. It's one of those little joys of DMing, to have a running census of player characters. (Several of you know I'm a huge sucker for the Amia relationship drama scene between characters, for example.)

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

For grandfathered characters, I think it is currently in discussion so we can decide what is best for our players, so they can keep their characters without making it either spitting in the face of lore or being awkward for immersion, and weighing its worth. At current, I think we would want to get a summation of the character for grandfathered characters, so we can talk about how to make it something we won't ever have to revisit again, because that's a bummer when it happens and can kill enthusiasm for a character.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

_________________

_________________
bad man

I think as a team we all know that the playerbase invests a lot of time and energy and creativity and inspiration into their characters, and attachment happens, and Amia is awesome because we offer a lot of freedom and customization and events and opportunities, all for free (except for DCs), and none of us want to take away characters that are much loved for being intriguing, but it is possible for them to be intriguing and unique without being an anathema.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

Considering it, I agree. I would need to think about all it would entail, because for spellcasters PnP, it is for spells that are listed in numerous online resources (for free, yay) and don't usually involve a specific class. They're Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer. Special PrCs like Ulrik's fatespinner and Eli's Warlock are requested, even if it's mostly for flavor. (even if they requested special things to help emulate their special class.)

For martial classes, it's a bit more difficult because their PnP feats are linked to special classes (considering like, the Complete Warrior sourcebook and stuff) which can just be requested, and approved, as long as lore is good and it's not awkward.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

I also enjoy how this is about solutions so far. It makes my heart happy.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

Well. Yeah, uh. I mean. I usually consider not being "someone or something intensely disliked or loathed" to be a pretty good thing in general. (Serious, non-joking note: I'm not sure I'm understanding the meaning of this statement, I apologise. Language barrier on my part, maybe. '-';)


I'd like to offer questions on two things. They're not on specific examples, but relevant to the discussion and intended to spark more of such. First:


I'm tri-quoting this (aww yis) because, yeah, Hackums emerged from the dead and hit the nail on the head. This is definitely something to consider. What is this PrC thing actually meant to restrict, in terms of classes and class-related RP, and are we ensuring that it doesn't restrict one group of individuals while ignoring another? This is an important question to consider when moving forward.

Two:

With regards to all of this in general... How strictly is this being enforced, exactly...? I started out pretty much in favour of this, but I'm starting to get genuinely concerned by the tone of some staff responses, particularly regarding background information and the like. Are peoples' longtime characters going to start getting removed or something because of their background conflicting with a recently-introduced policy? '-'

Because, with the tone that some of you guys are using, you're kind of implying that's gonna happen. And that worries me, so, pardon my entirely-respectful concern. I do agree with Hork in that we should try to take it easy for the first few days at least, while getting things sorted. I'm assuming that staff are willing to work with anyone who's in any kind of violation with these new policies, and talk with them about it to try and find a solution. That's my hope, anyway. I'd love some confirmation on it, because that's my most pressing concern with this.

_________________
Currently Playing:

• Krel'xiekiv - Kobold Scout
• Aldriano Alode'tnen - Fabulous Bard

I really think the overall staff attitude in regards to requests as a whole needs to change before demanding that more of them be made. Every time I read "It's not our job to facilitate your request" I die a little inside. Getting a request shouldn't be a battle. It should be a quick lore check (By someone qualified. Every time a DM asks me for lore info, I get a bit testy. I'm thrilled to help because I'm a nerd, but it tends to mean there's gaps in the staff's coverage) and then some suggestion and offers on how the DMs can make the RP happen for you, rather than citing reasons and precedents why they don't want to.

We have a truck load of DMs, and bluntly, they don't seem to be doing a heck of a lot. It's really, really hard to swallow a "no" from a DM that doesn't contribute to IG events, or loses interest in their own events, or simply surfs the request forum, and then being told it's not their job to help. What are they for, then? It's just a PR issue really. I hate wading into the request forum because I get mad and lose friends every time, and anything that makes me do it more does not make me particularly happy.

Time to make you unhappy then. >.>

My concern is primarily more general. This server, as IronAngel mentioned in the other topic, started very much with the concept to have very few restrictions in order to have a great deal of creative freedom for the players. For those who joined later, back in 2005 special character requests did not exist as we know them. You were free to play basically anything short of the child of a god. This meant back in those days, the server was filled with dryads, fiends, celestials, dragons, vampires and the like. If you wished to roll up a half-dijinn psychic warrior or a favored soul instead of a standard cleric, you were free to do so.

As you can imagine, even though there were some fantastic characters among this assortment of exotic creatures and classes, this resulted in some very weird stuff that was often very far-fetched. I back then rolled up some serious crap myself. Special character requests were introduced in a general reaction to this situation. The bar to get approval was much lower however. Players managed to request lichdom, sentinent constructs, and dragons, celestials, devils. That was around 2008. Slowly the restrictions came into place into other aspects as well, such as rebuilds. At that time, it was still possible to have your paladin become a cleric relatively easy, or even a rogue go wizard.

If the players conducted a ritual to drider-fy a drow, there were not many hoops to jump through. If they wanted to conduct a Frankenstein-esque endeavor to create a sentinent construct out of one of their own, it was very much possible. As the years progressed, the possibility of playing such characters was continuously reduced. It is basically understood (as came up in request topics of the more recent years) that obtaining lichdom, or playing a dragon, devil, or vampire is basically impossible unless you write nothing short of a miracle of a request. The preference is these characters remain as NPCs.

Grandfathered or old dm approved characters of the earlier years of Amia can have aspects no longer “appreciated” be forced-changed, or even be subjected to lore enforcements that basically mean permadeath. For me, this also is an issue of unease because it means that the character I requested two years ago, might in another two years be forced changed or removed. The DM approval is more of a temporary thing, because the approval of previous DMs can be overruled post-approval.

That bothers me enormously. I had it happen to me, and I downright stopped playing all but one of my old characters because I do not want to go through the hassle again. That character I may drop as well, because the forced change to it still make it hard for me to immerse myself in the character or have the enthusiasm of playing it. Perhaps that is just something I alone feel.

I feel that during roughly the last two years, this trend has continued too far. Everyone of course will balance the consideration of creative freedom and restrictions for the sake of server atmosphere and story quality differently. I know I am happy Amia has not remained as it was back in 2005.

For example, with rebuilds there is the concept of self-rebuild and then full-rebuild – basically a double rebuild for anything considered to be too big of a change. However, what now qualifies for too big of a change to me seems to really have gone too far. Years of roleplay and detailed well written requests do not suffice. So for me, this continuous trend has gone over what I find suitable. My concern being, that the trend will not end here.

The creative liberties allowed for some really great things. Now if IronAngel would want to roll up an elven Blade Singer, or Galenson a Favored Soul, or Yossarin would want to roll his effeminate bard, those would require a long request. (Please forgive me for using you guys as examples). That I find too much. I myself generally avoid the request forum, and characters that would require one. Especially as someone having english as a second language, it is a sizable effort.

It feels like a battle to me getting something approved, and if I was annoying someone. So I sit on a sizeable pile of DCs, and discard idea after idea.

I understand: But the ruling in particular touched on PnP base classes, as well. If we're being particular, I think we would have to agree that PnP base classes that are simultaneously emulated in NWN aren't the same in some ways. And because they are different, they should be treated the same as any other separation from strict NWN mechanics.

For instance, we are expanding upon NWN's Wizard base class by including PnP's wizard spellbook. Whether it's feats, abilities, skills-- the only clear and fair line we can draw would be what is and what isn't included in strict NWN mechanics. Everything else is a matter of debate based on opinions and a validation for the status quo that favors certain classes, but disfavors others.

Now, I'm not demanding that we eliminate arcane PnP spell usage without a full request to possess the spell. Nor am I hoping that we eliminate arcane PnP spell use altogether. I don't doubt that some prominent mage players saw these line of responses and became worried, or frustrated and feeling unfair--- that's the exact sympathy I'm hoping to extract to currently marginalized cases.

I'm unmoved that the prominent reason for including one class's abilities, but refusing another without formal request is because spell lists are easy to find. The same PnP feats, abilities, and classes can be found on the exact same website.

Yes

_________________

The Peacock wrote:

[GreatPigeon] is better than me.

You didn't make me unhappy, you shared my sentiments

I can see your opinion and feelings being completely valid, and I personally even agree with it in regards with requests. Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't put more effort into making someone's special request happen than they are, though. I don't think requests should be a battle, either, though. They should be exciting and fun, and I love to help, but some requests just need more help than I can give. A lot of that is because people don't want to take the criticism well, or change their request to make it passable.

At least, that's been my experience when I offer to help people on my own time.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

You are forgiven for invoking me as a grandfathered PC, Pony. After all, it was I who knighted you with the ALL STAR moniker.

Considering the length of his post, I think Pony was referencing the below statement, and was just terribly delayed with it due to the time it took to write his argument.


...But that delay is acceptable, in my opinion, because it's a damn good argument.

That's also my biggest concern, as well. This particular rule change, I don't have a lot of concern for, except for two reasons. Both of them were probably explained better by Pony, who seems to share the same concerns, but I'll list 'em anyway.

1: I'm worried that it's another sign of a shift towards a change in the server's general policy and feel that really turns from its roots. I made a post a while back talking to a newer player that explained why Amia was different from many of its peers, and why that was a good thing. You can see the post by clicking on this sentence. My primary point was that things were more relaxed here, and players had a lot more creative freedom to do interesting things, so long as they weren't a problem. To me, this seems to be another shift in our server's mood to the opposite of both of things; further restrictions to avoid potential problems down the road, and being a bit more uptight about restricting what people can and cannot do. I really like this server, in contrast to other servers like Arelith and Ravenloft. I'd really like if we didn't become like them.

2: The idea of removing long-time characters because they are no longer deemed acceptable under a recent rule change is, I concur, kind of ridiculous and just plain not very nice. If you approve something, it's a little terrible to go back and say that you changed your mind, and that they need to stop playing a character they've put a lot of effort into. I recently had a conversation with a person whose main character has a noble background, and they showed great concern for this particular rule change. That character's been one that they have played for seven years, apparently. And they play her pretty well, from what I've seen.


TL;DR: I don't really have any issue with these new policies, but I am concerned as to how they're going to be implemented, and what they imply for the future of the server.

_________________
Currently Playing:

• Krel'xiekiv - Kobold Scout
• Aldriano Alode'tnen - Fabulous Bard

Perhaps it might help to differentiate between separate kinds of requests. Requests that require DC's, for example: Custom abilities, spells-- things you've made up and personalized to your character. These should undergo a certain level of scrutiny.

But when it comes to requests that the staff is asking us to make as we request former liberties, or as there are requests that are really just a check-up on lore, they should not only be streamlined through a different process-- but viewed through a different lens by staff members.

This would make things easier for both staff and player.

Personally, my feeling on this is you being dramatic and reading into things not there. As I've said numerous times, no one wants to take away anyone's character, and it does not mean permadeath. That is you putting words into the team's mouth that is not there, and I think that is really unfair. We don't want to take away characters. We hate doing that. We offer compromises to help old requests that are questionable for a variety of reasons, so we can make them viable and you can keep your enthusiasm. I can't speak for every request, but from what I've seen lately, we're really trying to let people keep their characters, but only if compromise is willing to be had.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

I don't want anyone to scare other players into thinking that we're going to take away their characters in two years just because we get new DMs on the team, or want to repair gaping issues in lore with characters, even if we are willing to find ways to make it work.

[Edit] Or even worse, take away characters on a whim, just like many old characters in question were given on a whim. We can get a good middle ground here.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

The permadeath is the reference to my Erinyes Alicera. Alicera was pvped during the attack on the Elistreean Shrine event, and got smacked dead/banished. I was taken aside after the event by a DM, who enforced the lore clause that devils take several centuries to return to Baator. I was politely informed that now that Amia is more intend to follow the lore, this applies to me and it is hoped I understand. There was no ahead warning of this at all. The verdict basically was permadeath, with a polite sorry.

It took me about a week of thinking one of my favorite characters was perma dead, of going through tons of D&D material, careful reading of the lines for exact wordings, to find a way she could be brought back, before the year 2666 AD. I basically had to lawyer d&d material. I havent played her since though, as I felt that was a very unfair move. Given I had invested over a hundred DCs on her, played her for years, the least I would have appreciated was a warning ahead of time.

I feel it is hence a genuine concern.

I'm not sure it's so untrue. BoB. I recall times as a DM in which we were considering eliminating the potential for subraces-- such as Fey, in which we had to consider how to act with grandfathered characters.

Our decision was to have them re-submit a request so that it would fall into line with our new expectation for fey.

At first, that sounds perfectly honest.

But what if a player submits a request from this, and it isn't up to par? If we say no, we are in fact reneging what we formerly allowed on a level that is so fundamental to a character's existence. As DM's, this feels like a necessary streamlining. I know, I've been there.

But to the player, this feels incredibly different. The subjective quality of their request would then dictate the ability for their character to remain available for them to play. When players and staff so often disagree on Rp quality, this becomes a dangerous sentiment. Players won't invest into a character if they fear it will be taken away from them at a later time, due to a change in opinion that was outside of their grasp.

I sympathize with Pony's concerns.

I think that's really unfair for what had happen to you as well. But I am positive this isn't going to happen to the Grandfather characters. As BoB said they're going to make compromises / working to help them for those whom have the background that is against the rules. The rule the DM Staff is trying to enforce is more for future characters in my eyes.

_________________

Hork the Ork - Barbarian Ogrillion. [ac]
June Lucaus - Division One Marksmen.

Available RP Times : Weekdays [4:30 PM - 10:30 PM]
Weekends [10:00 AM - whenever.]

[/ac]

I feel for those concerns. I really do, and if I had the time and theoretical cooperation of the player to make what could be major or minor changes, I'd love to help. Unfortunately the brunt of that responsibility is on the player if they refuse my terms for help.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

I simply fail to see what could be so important about this stern streamlining process. If their background was established, and their characters were either grand-fathered or dm approved in earlier years of the server, than that should be all that needs to be said. They were fully acceptable. The previous DM team gave their word with their approval that the characters are acceptable to be played on Amia. Not temporarily, or until the next DM Team might feel differently. There was no expiration date on that.

Now, if the word of the previous DMs can be broken by you, and you are allowed to alter our approved characters as you best deem fit, why should we not be concerned that in two years the same might happen again with even sterner standards? My own character that is still active was changed, so I no longer have a horse in this race. But I fully understand if someone would feel discouraged from continuing to play their character once you surgically remove aspects you do not like. The streamlining process is not worth losing great characters who contributed to this server for a long time.

It was never necessary before. We survived the non-request characters on Amia for years, as well as the older request characters. What is so offensive and damaging to this server that it would be necessary now? And why is the brunt of the responsibility on the players, or it should be their fault for taking objection to your terms of help? And instead of investing the effort it takes to see to this streamlining, and the obviously bruised feelings you will cause, would your time not be better spent enriching this server in other ways?

I do not mean to be offensive or argumentative here. I simply really do not understand the need or see the reason this seems so important and worth it, and am trying to get a grasp of where this is coming from.

It comes from a desire to give people a fairer chance to succeed. If I make a character who's back story is that he's lord of a crystalline empire that has no basis in lore, and then request a bottled companion of my esteemed giant crystal man bodyguard, it breaks immersion. It's not fair to the people who see themselves as limited by the Forgotten Realms lore. It makes even less sense to allow that sort of thing after we've started interacting with outside FR powers like Amn (for better or worse..). Amia is still filled with the exotic, but at a certain point there must be a line in order for a DM to actually sit down and run a plot. That's the purpose of a campaign setting in the first place. Every DnD game has one in some form. This reminder is neither stern, nor anything new and shocking, it's simply a clarification of the way things were already being done.

As for grandfathering, on that point I agree with you, the word of previous teams should be honored. However, reading through all this I have yet to see someone say that it won't be. I really doubt anyone is going to be asked to stop playing a current character in the wake of this unless their back story was completely off the wall already, in which case it would have been addressed anyway, even before the statement.

I've now considered well over a year to request a new character. And to be honest, my largest concern is that am I able to give justice to it if I request. What if I fail giving it justice in RP even if the request was accepted?

To me, it sounds like I would loose the DM team's trust in my ability to roleplay. Or to provide quality of roleplay. We can already see it in the existing requests. "You're allowed this, only if you can provide the quality we want to see. If not, we take it away from you", "We trust your ability to roleplay (Or provide the quality roleplay) this correctly, it is no issue". It is very stressful to think that to be honest. And creates an atmosphere where you have to contribute, honestly, a large amount of time and effort to get to play a game. I understand the sentiment of "helping players to create a character and play that character". But, it should not create an atmosphere of doubt. And to be fair, I've often reached out to DM's asking assistance and most of the times left without a reply. I understand you most likely have a lot of work in your hands, plus it should be just a game for you. But as mentioned above, it does feel like some DM's are never available in the DM side. Which has caused issued for my character I still struggle to get out of without any hope in sight. I had IC plans and intention, unfortunately for me and my character, I had no DM or the specific DM was not available. But third time of receiving no response starts to make me think that have I done something to make the DM team not wanting to respond to me or to interact with me. Has something in my roleplaying and approach to roleplay caused issues I am unaware of?

And now to re-request my old characters. What is being asked is to make another huge junk of work to get the lore-details specific and correct to play your old character, even if you just want a moment of fun with them. I have one old character I play for the sake of fun, she is a fun character to me that can do stuff which Las for example cannot. But I don't want, to be honest, request to play her when her story is so old and she will not be my main again.

_________________
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm

No clue where to start with this, how ever... I like beating a dead horse in the mouth. The requesting of... anything really, races or "special" characters is just, wow. I have term papers for my Masters in computer security shorter and easier then what I have been asked too research and what not. Even with the help from the people who write the books, DnD 1st-4rth ed., wizards of the coast, (family friends), I have still had requests fail in the past. Just the last few years.

So I have to ask really, what is the object to this thread? I don't feel or see this really going anywhere but a tighter lock on what we can and cant RP. Wasted years of RP get destroyed in the game, years of work on characters killed because the DM teams don't want the race or what reason they come up with that year die off.

This all reminds me of history... mainly the oh wait.. 1800's Europe...

_________________


Braller Thunderbeard: The Dwarven mini-Jesus with a porn star name. Blasphemous.
Dante: "He is likely to heal you as he is likely to smite you."

Thank you for bringing up your concerns. I have read them all and will be responding in 30 or so minutes.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

Then I hope you are willing to try to understand. I realize that you had been pressured by previous DMs to give up a character you really liked, and invested a lot of time, effort, and DCs into. That isn't fair to you. As one of our older players, I realize that you had several PCs who are from the "no request" era, and still have some of them.

First of all, my response is going to address the "why now" question you have, Pony. Why now, because there is no time like the present, and this isn't a punishment. I cannot emphasize that enough, even if it may not be believed. The previous DM teams, I'm sure, did their absolute best and tried to make things fun, instead of making things fun within a standard. Now, as the team that comes after, we feel the need to reign in what is offensive and inappropriate, in regards to lore. It isn't fun to retcon things. It isn't fun to take away characters. It isn't fun to ruin other people's fun at all. We all hate it, and I'm sure the DM team that let these kind of things be commonplace hated it, and had the "what's the harm?" mentality, to a rather lax degree, which we are now trying to clean up after.

But why is it necessary to clean up after a finite number of grandfathered characters? Because some of them are, by my own words, inappropriate and give an edge over others in potentially bizarre ways that, as a team, we do not want to endorse, and would cause us to not approve things your character might want. I think that is unfair, personally, to the player, but it is reasonable for us to say no.

For an example, which I'll fabricate entirely so it resembles absolutely no grandfathered character that I'm aware of, but is on par with some of the older characters I've heard of first hand: A half celestial, the mortal son of Ao and a Trumpet Archon, is the Grand Lord of a tribe of fair-skinned Chultans who founded their own commune on an outlying non-canon island, where they are reputed to be the only tribe to tame the mighty dinosaurs that stomp around on the main island and usually eat people.

The previous DM team would have approved of such a character, because no requests are necessary. If this character were to come back, should I have to approve them wanting to bring all their dinosaurs and white-skinned Chultan servants to wage war on Caraigh, even though it was previously approved that he has all these things at his disposal? No, of course not.

But, I would offer a compromise to help him keep his character. He can be an aasimar that lived on Chult with some fair-skinned humans and headed a group who hunt dinosaurs, and who found faith in Ao after trying some local magic mushrooms and having a vivid hallucination of absolutely nothing being the key to the universe and happiness, and then ended up riding a baby dinosaur, who then became his ranger companion.

All this, in an attempt for your characters to be taken seriously by other characters. For them to be included in other character's stories, and events, and get recognition for being something other than being crazy, because years ago some people let you be the most unique snowflake the world ever saw. I think it is far more frustrating to have your favor character be written off because nothing adds up in lore and have requests denied because your backstory isn't kosher, when small tweaks can preserve your character's integrity, get your relevant requests approved, and have your character be taken seriously.

That is "why now." Because there is no time like the present to help people's characters be taken seriously, be included and relevant on our server today. I believe that is very enriching to the server, and hopefully, the benefits of accepting my terms of help will prevent too much bruising and hurt feelings.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

All of these examples used are extreme cases. From both sides. The extremes aren't going to be common enough for anyone to be legitimately upset about. I think that the problem is that there isn't all that much clarity between what is and isn't acceptable PnP emulation, and what amount of homebrew is or isn't okay.

It isn't the folks who make extremely off-base characters who will suffer the most, but instead the ones who have small-to-medium amounts of homebrew lore, or PnP emulation. Things they personally considered to be okay-- but when it comes up in a plot or through DM supervision that it isn't acceptable, they feel trapped.

It's the people in the middle that are going to feel less-compelled to write a full-bodied, retroactive request for their characters when they're 'caught' after having played for months without concern.

I think we have been getting more stern, and the more I read this, the more I want to apologize for making people feel in adequate or unworthy, or that their RP isn't good enough to get fun or nice things. That's awful. I want a standard, of course, but I do not want the standard to make people feel like they're being punished when they get a request denied.

As a DM, I am a fan of characters that embody absolutes or are paragons in that they possess certain traits that will not bend, while also possessing other traits are critical flaws or tragic. While I'm a fan of many characters, I will lose interest in a character once they bend on a trait that I felt defined their character, good or bad. (I think there is a term for this that relates to television series, when the writers forget about certain traits, or the show gets new writers? The fans always notice the mistakes first.) That is a reason I am very stern from time to time when it comes to requests, or request characters that change in ways I don't enjoy--it's a personal taste thing, and I don't see it as a reflection on the player of that character, even if I don't feel like "tuning in" anymore.

I also believe in consequences being permanent consequences, but those consequences almost never being death. That is my standard, which I think some people may see as unfair, but I think it is something we have adopted as a DM team lately (see: everything being on "Hard Mode") and as I've thought about it today, I think it may lead to these feelings of the DM team being "out to get people" for enforcing hard mode, and conjuring IC punishments or PvE consequences or hurdles when critical mistakes we see PCs making (like dismissing the possibility of consequences, being too big for their britches, or dawdling), while we are behind our DM screen.

That said, for you, Magrios, I would encourage you to make your request and let us see it. I hope that if there is an issue with it, we can reach a compromise and maybe one of us can help. I know we don't have a great track record with keeping up with requests, but I don't want people to feel like no response is automatically bad, or feel anxiety or doubt that we appreciate having them playing here because their requests are denied. That is a valid concern, and something I'll do my best to address personally from here on out.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

I am sorry you feel this way, but our players asked for a discussion thread to talk about this, and I think it is a good idea to give it to them. However, my objective is to, as I said, make characters be taken more seriously (if they're grandfathered with questionable backgrounds), make sure they don't feel pressured to kill off a character they love and have invested in, and make slight adjustments so it doesn't compromise the base virtues and integrity of the character. However, at the end of the day, the DM team is the boss with the final say, and the terms (which we do make, with consideration to the feedback we receive) are made by us.

I would like to make it the most benevolent dictatorship possible.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

The example you use is of course a very extreme case, where it seems the primary concern would be to have resources available to the character is a private island and a private army. Will the line be drawn by these most extreme cases that have assets of grand armies or sit on Ao's lap?

As what gives me pause are not these extreme cases, but other characters being fair game. What gives me pause is that you mention that apparently a half-celestial would be reduced to an aasimar. Does that mean you intent to generally tone down the heiritage of amian characters who have more potent bloodlines? Do the players with (half-)fiend, (half-)celestial, (half-)dragon and fey characters need to expect to be reduced to tieflings, aasimars, dragon disciples and feyborn?

What of players with sentient constructs or exotic races like aquatic elves or bird-elves? And what about prestige classes? Will you begin to tackle those as well? What about custom character backgrounds of non-established FR material or that of non-FR material such as having a Planescape background of having grown up in Sigil?

In other words, do you have a line drawn somewhere?

I think there's a bit too much of "what I want" topside versus "what the players want" If there wasn't some disconnect in this there wouldn't be 70 reply threads every other day. In review this seems like way too much overhead with too little reward when there's already mounting concerns of DM unavailability. If you want to do something for the benefit of the community instead of telling people what they can't RP, and retroactively digging up old bodies to be dissected and scrutinized why doesn't the administration take a more hands on approach and get down with the players for active assistance in plots and oversight of player initiatives.

Since we seem keen on old adages why don't we let sleeping dogs lie, ya?

_________________
bad man

I think I've overextended my relevance by now anyway. I don't think I could come up with more to say that wouldn't be arguing over territory I don't have. At the end of the day, we don't have the authority to make these decisions. I'll only caution that while the direction and administration of the server rests in the hands of the staff, that the only thing keeping players here is their desire to remain. And the inherent trust in the staff to be fair arbiters.

I guess I just kind of worry. I feel uncomfortable with the DM's managing over the quality of my roleplay for the sake of being taken seriously (By others? By whom?). It feels very paternalistic. And if my friends and I are having fun with each other, but we're not taken seriously by people that we don't really interact with-- is that so harmful? Is it the job of the Amian DM to intervene in that case?

I understand that the scope has to be defined, as Ego pointed out. But this feels like a pigeonholing into a direction by someone else's standard of quality Rp. We're doing more than just narrowing into a campaign setting. These kinds of practices reach far beyond, unfortunately.


// Editted and added some. Hackums, out.

With my fun little theoretical extreme character, my base line would be to reduce them to an aasimar, but I could be negotiated up to keeping them as a half-celestial if they let me know why they want it, and what it does for the character.

I have no real issue with the half-X and fey creatures, and see no reason to demote them to lesser blood statuses, if they do a good job with their grandfathered character (see: following the base lore expectation for them being paragons of their race and alignment definition, with some leeway since they have that other half to contend with).

I can only speak for myself, but I think in most cases, I'd be happy with a census so I know what is being played. ("Hi, I'm Henry, and I play a half-celestial, which I need help choosing an ancestor for--I like solars!--but I also have a fey I need help choosing a cynosure for.")

I'd draw the line, personally, at things that give characters that have extraordinary means, are lords of their on non-canon home nations/cities/settlements, are playing a character that is WAY off (an inappropriate child progidy, an epic child of any class, a LG red dragon, "I'm from Earth" characters, anyone who came in one a spaceship, to name a few that immediately come to mind.)

I realize that at one point, Amia as a different place. Hence my willingness to compromise, despite still insisting that the DM team is the boss.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

My desire to have characters taken seriously by others is because I don't want characters to not have any relevance outside of their clique, or their group of friends, so maybe they don't get to have the lime light in events from time to time. Or they don't get to play with others because they're written off as "insane" and they don't get to contribute as much as they may like to, or have the capability to. If the character concept can be taken seriously and considered viable, and is something that the DM team can step in and respect their unique abilities during events, then it can only be healthy for our server and enrich it. At least, that is my opinion.

I say this, because there are other servers out there that it is possible to go and play whatever you want and just play with your buddies and create all your own standards, which is great. On Amia, though, I feel the need to step in and make standards, and still have it not suck all the fun out of everything.

[Edit] The problem of being excluded, or not finding RP, or being ignored, and dealing with cliques is a problem I've been hearing about for a long time (I do read player concerns, even if I don't respond to them right away) and I think about how to resolve things, even if it's just spitballing or brainstorming in topics like these.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."

The more I read in this thread the more anxiety I experience. Playing a character who is human with a skin tone like no other human. With a body type another player had to run a gauntlet to request whereas I just walked in and did it in the old days. I didn't do anything wrong then but I am feeling more and more like I am doing something wrong now.

I thought I made a post in one of these topics about agreeing with Iron... Did someone delete it or something? Did some of our posts disappear completely?

Regardless, thank you Ninja for highlighting what I believe to have been one of the biggest issues of the server for about three or four years even: the requests forum. It is my opinion that forum directly correlates to the "us vs them" mentality you reference, Burning. Anyways, I've said my piece on this to enough people in so many ways that it seems unnecessary to reiterate here. I hope others keep up the commentary and discussion though. It's one of the more harmful, passive sorts of poisons I've seen going around. Just know that I agree overall with the existence of these issues and most being left unresolved- and it contributing to many underlying factors of unrest. Feel free to poke me for more opinions if you're that curious but I am just too tired for the public eye on specification.

I am fine if there is a very clear drawn at private kingdoms with massive armies and having the ear of Ao. Have at it, without any opposition from me. If there is a LG Red Dragon, sure. The extreme of the extreme.

If you do not like how the CE Red Dragon is played and hence the character is subjected to the streamlining, I have a considerable problem with it. When (half-)fiends, (half-)celestials and fey become fair game as soon as they are not up to par with which ever DM currently is looking over the shoulder, I again have a considerable problem with it.

I can also not wrap my head around how this is portrayed as a favor to those players who will be subjected to this in the months to come, that your quality control of their (in part several year old) characters they have grown to love to play here is in their best interest of enjoying the server. To me, it feels more as if the quality control is being enforced as the quality of our characters is not satisfactory to the DM Team, and so we need your patronage. The benevolent dictators stepping in for our own good. This does not at all feel like the hands-off approach customary to this server. Hence my tone.

As soon as we lose one old character (and likely the player) who stuck around for years, and enriched the roleplay of others for such a long time - only for the sake of toning down a child prodigy and an awfully played half-celestial, it was not worth it. That is the time I will also no longer be investing massive hours into amia for custom content, hak work and area design - because it simply will not be Amia anymore. The rethoric very much feels like Arelith 2004, where those not able to keep up with the expected quality of the DMs can either suck it up or find their silly unrestricted server of lacking roleplay.

I would not have survived on this server as a neewbie, were it so unforgiving. I would much rather see us to encourage quality roleplay by demonstrating great roleplay others aspire to. We have seen those with a bit "silly rp" create fantastic characters down the road. Amia should be a welcoming place, where the players feel at ease when it comes to sharing their creativity. Not some hardcore rp server.

I mentioned I was cleaning up the previous topic of clutter, and opening a new one.

_________________

"The world takes and takes, even things that aren't offered. Finally, it gave us something back; I wish he was here to share it with me."