AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

The city-factions focus was a slow and steady evolution, that had many contributing factors and parties. Nor was it worryingly problematic for a long while. Assigning any specific blame to anyone is not only completely unnecessary, but is incredibly inappropriate because no one specific is truly responsible in the manner for there to be any mentioning of names. Nor do we need to assign any blame for us to be able to begin to improve things. It does not help anything. It was us as a part of the community, not an individual or small group of individuals.

It is one thing pointing out the DMs should organize themselves to be more efficient in the context of what Alanna wrote, or for the players to show more initiative for player-driven events. It is another trying to single out an individual as the responsible person of a five-year development that was contributed to by many other factors and a lot of the community. Myself included.

Thank you, everyone. We may not all agree, but I feel this has materialized conceptual, difficult to pin down issues into a tangible series of problems we can track to various sources and analyze in order to work with it. I am personally not a fan of playing in political or city roles at all (boo council meetings) and have never pursued them IG. Unfortunately I also find myself less inclined to assist people in those roles, largely on accident... I'm just not there. I wonder if other DMs feel the same, or are otherwise so bogged down with their settlement roleplay they can't reach out elsewhere?

This, though.. we can work with this. It will be a lot of effort and, of course, some structural work on how both players and DMs go about their business, but it doable. The trick is to also not alienate those players who find joy and have grown comfortable with the way the server has gradually shifted direction.

Estara - I feel like you may not have captured the meaning of my post on my opinion of the subject of death, as nowhere within that post was permadeath even mentioned. I'd also like to hear your opinion on how a villain should react in a situation where they've killed the same person three times in one day/week and they come back for a fourth run? These are the among "underlying issues" on why evil players don't PvP or are reluctant to generate open conflict that people seem to crave.

When talking about death at all, the permanency of it (or lack thereof) is extremely relevant. Whether you mentioned it or not! I make no claims on how you "should" react, but only that others' take on it may be just as valid as your own. That was my main point. I think I understood yours very well, and while I have quite a few opinions on how Evil should be run, it's not really what I was going for- nor do I think it's the underlying issue at all. I think you point out symptoms. People thinking fourth runs are okay versus thinking fourth runs aren't okay- which is right? Realistic? Better? Etc, etc.

I respectfully just have to disagree, as someone who plays evil and has this issue happen on a daily basis. Many people I know have gotten tired of it as well. As for what's right and what's not? I have my opinion, and you obviously have yours.

I actually really like city-based political intrigue Rp. It's.. literally my absolute favorite form of RP. So you can imagine how difficult it is for me to say that it should have a restricted place on Amia.

We just don't have the necessary tools to run it. I was actually on the staff when a lot of these "tools" problems came to fruition. I'll explain:

In order to run a sandbox-styled political intrigue persistent world, players need to be not only welcomed and encouraged to take positions of leadership (It should be relatively simple, with only even a small request at times), but they must also be able to play with all the necessary tools. The way a sandbox is done fairly is that systems would have to be created that give resource counts (Wood, stone, military numbers) so that players can create intrigue on their own. They plot and scheme about how the enemy has a certain advantage over them, and how they need to acquire X resources by arranging an alliance with Y-- as an example.

There was actually a time-- maybe a year ago, or 6 months-- when players started asking these questions. And as a team, I remember we had to, for the first time, try to map out all the city resources. We started considering systems of how to make it fair (I wrote up a few), but we could never agree, and it never amounted to anything other than a few behind-the-screen numbers. But what this should tell us, is that as a server we are patently unprepared to go this route. And that continuing to try without creating the necessary systems is doing steady, unseen damage to the community.

Which leads me to fully support the kinds of solution and examples that Pony gave. Even though I love political intrigue RP, and I love, love, love a good sandbox-- I think the healthiest thing for Amia is to bring back the old style of faction play.

Faded Wings wrote:

I respectfully just have to disagree, as someone who plays evil and has this issue happen on a daily basis. Many people I know have gotten tired of it as well. As for what's right and what's not? I have my opinion, and you obviously have yours.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Or having an opinion on how to go about something. My whole point was that to control others to go along with what you want, or to try to enforce it OOCly in the mandates and direction of the server, or to talk in a superior manner about which way is better or more fun or more realistic, or to be a DM who says how it has to go down, or whatever...

That's what I think is actually wrong, and has been the biggest divergence that we've had from the past.

I'm sorry if my words upset you, Faded. I was really just trying to illustrate my own thoughts and use examples, not to take anyone else down or attack them. I really mean it when I say I see it even in myself. It's just not the same anymore. We say it's about city RP vs. faction RP, but what I really think is the problem is, is that it's about one specific type of RP at all.

I'm thinking about all the various player factions that Amia has lost over the years from tangling with this spectre. Not to dredge up bad history, but to give an example of the kind of unseen damages.

I think it's fair to say (At least, when I was playing a few months ago it had been this way for almost a year) that factions are having a tougher and tougher time. Fewer exist than the 'old days' that we so often enjoy reminiscing over. My intention with this post is very specifically not to re-open wounds, but to provide a clear example of the level of depth that this has impacted us as a community. It is not healthy to fault either the DM's or the players for the damages done, because we have to understand that damages were unintentional.

So please read on only with a healthy sobriety, and reflect upon how these cases may be relevant to the kinds of changes we should pursue from this point forward:

1.) The War Knights
The biggest example I can think of. They were the embodiment of a free-range faction that engaged in a long history of involvement without being tied to city-based intrigue. Not only had players voiced a disinterest in it, but eventually found their untimely ruin in the betrayal and state-based RP.

2.) The Triadic Knights --> Silver Dragons
This again, is a fairly large example of a historically free-roaming faction being reshaped and molded into a city-based entity. With it, came a bunch of Rp restrictions. We saw knightly characters being pushed and encouraged to play a game of politics, and a number dropped off in frustration.

3.) Tower of Mystra --> Kohlingen Shields
This is a fairly similar case as the TK's. Again, remember-- it's not "DM's did this to us!" Players also pursued these changes, all with justifiable in-character reasons. Remember that until now, these deep-rooted problems have never really fully been materialized.

4.) Banites in Ostland
I don't have too many examples from this, but I remember encouraging the Banites to seek a home there, because the setting fit. But it also pushed them to engage in politics, and I believe more often than not this stunted them.

5.) Thayans
We had plenty of problems of our own, but I remember what struck the players hard was that it was so difficult to on-par with the required intrigue and resources that were afforded to city-factions. When they faced Kohlingen PC's and allies, for example, they were swiftly destroyed by NPC resources that were explicitly denied to them (For the time being, o'course). As a faction lead, I remember having an immense amount of difficulty providing conflict for PC's without having access to tools that the targeted PC's had. My only legitimate path was to play a very patient game until we developed similar resources-- which we ultimately couldn't do!

6.) Tarkuul
With an increase in city-based sandbox play, Tarkuul and its factions/PC's have been in a curious position. I see players level frustrated comments about how they are generally handicapped into a kind of strange neutrality-- but it also makes IC sense. Because we've been playing a pseudo-citybased sandbox, Tarkuul has so much more to lose. It's actions could have entire armies marching against it, and thus-- it cannot afford to have its own characters actively going out and causing problems.

I'm sure there are others. But this should give a few examples that should provide some interesting reflection, hopefully. I know from experience that players miss a kind of faction play, and that so many players were confused and frustrated that factions were largely a construct of history. Maybe this gradual shift in paradigm can help to explain why? And if so, we can now take measures in the opposite direction!

I'm writing a lot, I know. But it's because I'm genuinely excited that we've identified this as a potential issue. Having this clarity means so, so much to both DM's and players. We can finally buckle down and cure a problem that really, if we're being honest, has been at the back of all of our minds, frustrating DM's and players alike for at least a year.

That-- and our current staff is all ears. This is making me very optimistic.

So we've presented our case. I think this is one of the root issues. I think there are solutions available as both players and DM's. It's up to the rest of the community to decide whether or not they agree with this conclusion, and whether or not they have the excitement to want to change it. With that, I'll sit back and watch with interest. This really isn't something that should be argued over, because it's got waaayy too many connections to previous pain and struggle. So I'm just going to let people decide on their own, and I encourage the same.

The only way changes like this work is if they truly and honestly come from a consensus from the community. And that shouldn't be forced.

Politics are boring. The beat cop investigator guard has more fun than paper drowned andrew fryar, im sure. Politics are power, and people-characters want that. It is natural for people to gravitate to these hubs. I think it isnt even dm directive that set us on a city course, especially given the closed door policy amia so loves in player affairs. The amount of exclusive activities surely has aided in setting this particular stage.

Thank you, Estara. What you wrote was helpful for everyone, but what you said in reference to me was a breath of fresh air from what I normally read. So thank you again very much for that.

To Hackums list, I would like to add Winya Ravana.

The fact is that on several points we had around 5-10 elfs online. Which was amazing to see those numbers really. However, the community died as there was nothing we could do, the fact is that the city did not have active DM's or even a Dm pointed to it at times. Instead, most players were faced with a problem of either going to Kohlingen or Cordor where events did take place.

Now, I don't blame the DM's for this nor our players. I just want to point out that Winya Ravana had a potential few times to pick up and perhaps become something if there had been DM support. Players could do only so much together in the atmosphere of city-state roleplay without DM's. Instead of us defining which settlements are "major" settlements and deserves most attention, there should be focus on being reactive to changes of player focus and cater there.

The fact that we are working with city-state roleplay means that DM's controlling the NPC's must know tons of lore and whatnot. Which in turn means that the DM's are tied to those cities and more declining to take up something out of their comfort zones. Adventure/Faction style, in my opinion, would enable more flexible and less burdensome roleplay, not to mention far more range in stuff to do. After my mains fail in politics, I shifted more into trying to arrange adventuring kind of events, only to face the difficulty of the city-state events being so massive that there was not IC "resources" to go to these kind of 'silly' things. Which is a shame that it went to serious-mode if you ask me. Simple events took months to go through just because of the heaviness of city-state roleplay and tied up resources to just be there in case anything happens. Please note that this is my view only.

Estara - I'm not mad.

Regardless of "elitism", or "superiority", that my examples seemed to you to contain, and even detaching yourself from forgotten realms or D&D entirely, you have to admit there's something unattractive by having the same person just reviving and coming back at you, without a care in the world. That's the only thing I was getting at, I'm not trying to call someone a bad RP'er, I'm just saying it gets old.

Quote:

4.) Banites in Ostland
I don't have too many examples from this, but I remember encouraging the Banites to seek a home there, because the setting fit. But it also pushed them to engage in politics, and I believe more often than not this stunted them.

To clarify... and with no disrespect to the writers of the lore there, I think the plot turned more people away than anything else there. We all loved politics, but almost none of us liked Ostland. Plus, even weeding through our doubt, we got strong-armed by Tarkuul (and by effect, the acting DM there) out of the blue and lost all of our RP overnight.

I'm looking over Ostland now to make it more friendly to players.

Magiros wrote:

The fact that we are working with city-state roleplay means that DM's controlling the NPC's must know tons of lore and whatnot.

I've also found, through experience talking to some DMs about it, DMs are mainly chosen on numberous factors, one of which is what PCs they have and where are they based. They're more likely to make Joe Bloggs the DM of Cordor because their main PC is affiliated with Wiltun. I know there's exceptions to the rule (Amarice plays the leader of the Grove and also helps DM it) but I find it interesting, most folk who DM certain cities have normally next to no PCs involved in it.

On another point, echoing Hackums' and Magiros' points of city states, I feel for a lot of these communities there was never any closure regarding how they viewed DMing. I know when Bendir spoke up on two separate occasions regarding DMing back in 2013 and 2014, we didn't see much conversation DM-side come our way before Hudson became Bendir's call-to-arms DM. The end result was what we wanted and Bendir was finally help to flourish as a community. Then Hudson left (for just reasons) and we're kinda heading back to where we are fast.

Ultimately, in some cruel twist, I've noticed something:

--Communities that want to play the political battlefield tend to have little official DM support that aren't any of the "Big" communities (Aka Cordor, Cordor West, Kohlingen etc)

--Communities that don't want to play the political battlefield often lose players when forced to, due to the players feeling as if they are "Screwed over" (Such as several of the examples Hackums and Magiros have explained).

And it boils down to one thing: I think we need clearer communication between DMs and players about these things.

Estara wrote:

No one knows the history behind Estara and Samantha, because no one has ever delved far enough to find out, but it doesn't mean..

... Hey! I delved. Better to say "No one still living knows". In any case, all this talk of "lack of" permadeath rings a bit hollow in my ears. I'd be more inclined to say that its application is arbitrary.

Burningoutbright wrote:

I'm looking over Ostland now to make it more friendly to players.

And I look forward to working with you. I have been trying to get Ostland moving in Roleplay for the past few months but due to no actually DM activility because of the searching for a DM to look over it I am glad to see that the DM team has accumulated a DM. My fav DM too.

Faded Wings wrote:

Quote:

4.) Banites in Ostland
I don't have too many examples from this, but I remember encouraging the Banites to seek a home there, because the setting fit. But it also pushed them to engage in politics, and I believe more often than not this stunted them.

To clarify... and with no disrespect to the writers of the lore there, I think the plot turned more people away than anything else there. We all loved politics, but almost none of us liked Ostland.

Burningoutbright wrote:

I'm looking over Ostland now to make it more friendly to players.

Ostland was very interesting as a concept and I worked on it as much I could with the DM there was. There was a lot of positive, but there was parts that were negative, like getting DM time in the end. But I do agree, Ostland turned most away.

BoB, I would like to know more on this Ostland matter if you plan to pick it up, meaning I would like to participate in it IG and any idea when it might be getting restarted? There are some unsolved matters there.

Magiros wrote:

BoB, I would like to know more on this Ostland matter if you plan to pick it up, meaning I would like to participate in it IG and any idea when it might be getting restarted? There are some unsolved matters there.

I don't think it will be geting restarted Magiros. One main reason I think this is because Nivo and Ego left off in the middle of a war. Lord Avadon, and the rest of Wiltun in which are very active are tied to the war withOstland. I hope it ends soon.

Regards,
H.T.O

Thus thread was originally meant for a debate on player leadership of a settlement versus npc leadership. This thread is sort of the prime example of why I'm leaving. Everyone is in the wrong here and you all made this thread terrible.

You all need to stop dumping on each other and try taking personal responsibility for your actions, attitude, inactions, and how they affect the server and player base around you. That means player and DM alike.

This thread had completely innocent intentions and it just got filled with cancer.

It's an embarrassment is what it is. You're all adults.

Mate, you're normally pretty cool, which is why that post you just made is incredibly disappointing. If you don't want to be here, then you should step away. As is you're being unfair to the people posting and the genuine discourse that's being generated here. I hope no one else really responds to your post because honestly it doesn't help what we're gaining here.

Whoa, whoa. Be easy, Bob. I think you're maybe reading this the wrong way.

This was a discussion first on PC vs NPC leadership. It turned to a bit of a divergent rant earlier on, but I still think this is all pretty relevant (The discussion on Intrigue/Sandbox and city-based factions is indeed a part of the discussion on whether or not to have NPC or PC leadership!), and furthermore-- a very, very, very healthy discussion.

The list I posted referenced a number of old wounds. Even as much as I asked people to not pick it apart, or cast blame on others, there's going to be a little bit of that. In fact, I'm both glad and surprised that there hasn't been all that much-- and also that BurningoutBright handled it so calmly (And even turned it around, inviting people back into trying it out again).

To be honest, I came back to the Amian forums because of the optimism and potential solutions arriving from this very thread. Maybe you're just reading it with tired eyes, if that makes sense? It sounds like you've honed in on the few and far negative remarks that are otherwise in a large swell of optimism.

I should add that I enjoy political intrigue and, generally, the city-state stuff. However I don't think we are either able to or simply are not pulling it off correctly. There's a gap in there and I believe people are being forgotten/left behind and that gives me a sad. I just believe things went better when they were more faction-orientated.

I can see why some of the posts in the thread would make you feel like that, Bob, but I think it has definitely been growing more positive. I feel like the real root of the problem is finally being discussed here openly and without mud slinging. I love political intrigue too and actually played on a server where my character was the leader of a main city for a couple years, but Amia isn't exactly set up for that kind of thing.

The focus on city faction RP happened naturally as a result of major plots, but I think it has been hurting the server for a while now because it inevitably cuts out a lot of people and slows things down. I don't think I'm dumping on anyone by saying that and I don't think the others that have posted recently are either, but I'm definitely open to other opinions. This theory just seems to make the most sense.

OpenTheRift wrote:

Politics are boring. The beat cop investigator guard has more fun than paper drowned andrew fryar, im sure. Politics are power, and people-characters want that. It is natural for people to gravitate to these hubs. I think it isnt even dm directive that set us on a city course, especially given the closed door policy amia so loves in player affairs. The amount of exclusive activities surely has aided in setting this particular stage.

i like this. politics is boring and exclusive.

I do love me some political intrigue as well, and the modern craze that is Game of Thrones is probably contributing to more people being interested in fantasy political intrigue. I think we can all agree that Amia is no Game of Thrones though. It just isn't set up for that level of gameplay, nor do I think it should be or could be retrofitted to work well.

So, as a suggestion (thoroughly away from the original thread topic) to please both the people that see the political intrigue as an issue and the ones that enjoy it, I have the following idea. First, as I said before, political characters on -Amia- should be retired, either as a character or from politics. They've made it, and no longer adventure (taking them out of the adventuring game that is Amia), or they decide leadership isn't for them and return to it. No one is forced to perma their character, or lose control of it, and leadership of cities returns to NPC control so the DMs can actually push story arcs along.

While that is happening, to fill the political void, we (re)start WAR GAMES, turn it into the Amian national past time. A game within a game. Much like what Hackums was doing for awhile. In-Character games anyone can take part of, so the exclusion factor is removed (along with the favoritism factor, since every game everyone would start over with whatever the starting conditions we decide are). Not being the 'real thing' makes it easier to decide arbitrary numbers for soldiers and materials, which sidesteps one of the issues DMs were having with Game of Amia. It could turn into a gold sink, partially addressing another issue. It could run on any timeline we like, an epic year long game or monthly bouts. Player death could mean something, within the game, which lets the politics be dangerous without touching the established Amian death rules. Characters could get as into it as their players let them (think about how into sports people get IRL, from betrayal and intrigue for season tickets to rioting on the streets because one team lost [or won]). It could be done independently of DMs, the game being entirely IC, though their support would of course be useful. Maybe run by some Red Knight devotees? It -would- be a huge amount of work, more than I suspect some people think. Dunno exactly how it could/should work, was just thinking about the fact that I get my political intrigue fix from playing Crusader Kings rather then NWN, which then reminded me Hackums had done exactly this.

Unless, of course, our characters commanding armies in a game within the game we are playing doesn't quite itch the same scratch. Just a thought.

Re: Ostland, it should be soon. I won't be the one running it, but our very talented slkNihilus will be. I'm just consolidating the lore and making it a nice accessible package for him and whichever other DM may run it in the future. He is already dipping his toes into the region, which should be interesting for Ostlandur PCs; however, it should be noted that the region around Ostland is blockaded by Wiltun vessels due to a current conflict between the Jarldom of Wiltun and the Jarldom of Ostland.

He and I are going to work together on the joint conflict between Wiltun territories (run by me) and Ostland territories (run by him) to make a conflict work fairly in the region. I'd like to finish my timeline in the region for everyone to look at (including players!) so everyone can understand Ruathym easier and the cultural-political climate based on the history. I don't have a timeframe yet, except that it will be "soon". I'm about 80% done with the timeline, and then we need to discuss the future of the region and our NPCs.

[Edit]: The major hold up is some lore inconsistencies between Wiltun, Caraigh, Ostland and canon FR lore for the region. The region has been handled in some shape or form by around nine-ish DMs over the years, not including Ostland's DMs, so it's a small bird nest that is proving very confusing.

If Ostland is blockaded and inaccessible, how does Ostland intend to reach out to involve new blood that wouldn't otherwise know to try to get through the blockade in the first place, or are they going to be relegated to NPC bad guys?

Something slk and I are going to talk about so we can breathe some life into it. Historically, it isn't the first time that Ostland has been blockaded by Wiltun for being bad (which will be explained in the timeline). In the past, they were still able to get around because they had really good foreign trade partners and control of all the iron mines, which bought them quite a bit of influence.

The obvious answer for me is that they still call on their old trade allies (like Luskan!) and so on to help them breach the blockade. There are other options that are more political and draw on canon resources, but politics seem to be the last thing some of our playerbase wants. So we need to weigh the pro's and con's.

There are NPC bad guys there that are more than fit for the role of handling the whole conflict, but we don't want to box it up if there is interest in fighting in the loyalist Ostlandur party under the Bathries against Wiltun and the Ostlandur Rebels under Magnus. That probably doesn't make sense to most people, which is why I think it's better to wait to make the decision until after the timeline and OoC area information is posted, so people get a grasp of what is happening before they make their Ostland loyalists or send their pre-existing PCs to be loyalists to Ostland. Then, once we see what the interest level is, slk and I can make some decisions.

Wow Burnin! I am so excited to hear of these changes. Will be interesting to learn more, so do take your time!

on the second note, I need to send you a Pm about few things. Clarification to those IC matters would be nice.

Having worked with slkNihilius before I am both over the moon and already starting to write the IC will..... That Dm sure knows how to get to your character unexpectedly.

To NC, there always is ways to move in and out of Ostland.

A blockade only a "small" challenge in the way.

Personally, I am glad to see Ostland picked up again. It offers a chance for this characters who were highly mixed in it to finally have a conclusion. Or just death. Who knows!

Please do. I'm trying to make sure nothing gets lost in the transition.

Well no, my concern wasn't getting -past- the blockade. That's relatively trivial for uber-venturers. I was poking BoB to see if they would be providing -reasons- to do it. I think there will be

Thanks Alanna for being ballsy and addressing touchy matters head-on with a degree of discretion to avoid a full-blown shitstorm. I hope you'll keep up the dialogue. I'm not aware of the recent turmoil, but there have been at least two bans that have led me to believe there is an atmosphere of caution and confusion in Amia that hasn't been sorted out yet.

On the future of Amia, I find it exceedingly odd that the energy of content creators for the past two years has greatly focused on area developing and extension. How is an expansion ever going to help create spotaneous player interaction that is unarguably of the server's biggest merits? The ever decreasing player activity calls for a different operating model; events could, and should, be planned and coordinated more OOC to ensure the continuation of long-term engaging and rewarding plotlines. OOC has always been a precarious means of communication on Amia, but I feel it's necessary to prepare the plot well beforehand or else you'll be doing a half-assed job about it; the size and length of the plot are relative to the available time of the DMs and to the amount of players participating. It's also good to plan the plot in a way that includes all of the players; this doesn't mean that there has to be a distinct role for every character to fill, rather that each "party" is somehow invested in it. Said parties should come into collision with their vested interests, such as conflicting or even hostile religious motives, in order to generate RP that can roll on its own for some distance.

To answer your question about content creation, Opustus: I cannot speak for the whole of the development team, but since I am no longer a DM, I have a very limited impact on what you say the playerbase wants and needs - more spontaneous player interaction, events introduced by DMs or players, all serving as instigators of, motivators for, or possibly completely unrelated to new or ongoing plotlines. But I still think about these things as a content developer, and I try to pepper my work liberally with a lot of creative content and detail that both players and DMs can take inspiration from. My goal has thus far been to try to create a fertile soil that people can take advantage of.

There are, of course, a lot of others things unrelated or very loosely related to player interaction that players have wanted for a long time that we are working on, but honestly, what you are looking for is an initiative from the DM Team moreso than the content creators (developers).

I only played here for less than 2 years. I don't know how Amia looked like "back then" so I might see things differently. The things I encountered and see as problems might be isolated or at best not contributing to the biggest issue discussed over here. But I guess it's just as good insight as any other.

Fairness

serbiris wrote:
In any case, all this talk of "lack of" permadeath rings a bit hollow in my ears. I'd be more inclined to say that its application is arbitrary.

Estara wrote:
Because I think we've forgotten the phrase Rolling with the Punches. I'm happy to roll with your RP, so be happy to roll with mine.

+1. There isn't any good 'route' of which players can go, when they feel rules are being abused. But most of all - I believe it's not DMs that contribute to this problem most, but players do. Which brings me to:
Players attitude

AzureLuna wrote:
It is that easy. The community standards and feeling start with you guys and trickles down.

Just as much as the community standards and feeling start with players and "trickles" up.

The time DMs spends on the client should be derived to include as many players as possible in the plots with giving them chance to make a change. Personal plots? Sure they're nice and all, but I don't really understand the attitude of demanding from DMs to be everywhere and accommodate everyone.

My RP was never heavily based on the presence of DMs, though of course it was nice to run into some plot.

Analog Kid wrote:
Nothing else can happen until the 'community' is a 'community' again,and not player vs. player.
The OOC hindrance

CrazyCatLady wrote:
One of my characters was engaging in activities that would be expected by her class. I was asked to refrain from doing so without a DM on, due to "plotline" stuff, even though these were actions that she would normally take and that could have been caught ICly by other players, leading to a lot of RP.

^ This, I hit that OOC wall once. That didn't have anything to do with DMs activity (rather with their decisions), but the feeling of being disheartened was the same. (Luckily that particular issue has been resolved after some time, which I greatly appreciate).

I'm sorry, Yoss, I should've made two distinct points: (1) Content creators (or developers, as you specified) have been developing new areas, not only by making extensions to previous ones, but by actually creating whole new uncharted areas, such as Ostland and the whole of what I perceive as peripheral Wiltun. Why couldn't the RP revolve around the already existing areas; what was the purpose of creating ghost towns? Even if people migrated to new lands, as they surely have, it will leave the former hubs of RP deserted and unmanned. Even if there was a narrative consistent with the creation of these new areas, there would also have to be an OOC validation for it, formed in the question of "Will this invigorate the server?" In my humbledore, streamlining the map could encourage player interaction by simply reducing the amount of hotspots on the server. When I log in, I would like to expect to meet people in Cordor, for example. Instead, they are fanned out all over the inexplicably expanded land of Amia.

I expect decisions like creating new areas need to be at least approved by the DM Team before being added in the module, which even accentuates the question, what were they thinking?

I wasn't targeting Developers in general, just the ones behind designing new areas and the DMs okaying it. And I don't expect to be right about this either; there may be a wholly reasonable explanation, or my assumption of "streamlined areas -> more player interaction" may be entirely baseless, but I give myself the benefit of the doubt to at least question the seemingly rash territorial expansion.

Your creative crowdsourcing is a fantastic idea and all morsels of lore and history that can be found in-game are sure to result in a shrill and girly nerdgasm from me.

My second point, (2) the DM plots and how to fashion them to meet server needs and wants, was a whole other story, unlinked to the developers. Admittedly, since I haven't been too active on the player side as of late, such changes (a different "model of plot-crafting") might have already been made, widely discussed or in motion.

Thanks for the clarification, and it is a very valid point. One that Pony in particular was quick to bring up to the development team a while back. When you refer to areas like Ostland, for example, most of those were designed...ages ago before any of this conversation ever started, when we actually did have a larger playerbase, so it was less of a problem. Upon realization that the playerbase is spread very thin, we have (mostly) suspended the creation of new areas that expand the size of the server and are instead giving existing areas a face lift. You may have noticed this with the Cordor Sewers that Glim worked on (the Labyrinth, while being a new area, is his pet project and offers something players have wanted for longer than he has even been around here: a truly epic dungeon.) There are at least 3 other areas that are working on being updated; one of them is close to being done and needs some monsters and scripting work, another one needs that and a few more areas built, and couple of others are currently in the idea stage with some building having begun.

We acknowledge that the playerbase is actually too small for a server the size we have it right now, and the content creators are working with that in mind. It is also why we are working together with the DMs to try to emphasize the "3 major hub" system.

That makes a world of sense. It can also be suggested that the expansion of the server might have resulted in the dispersion of players into more remote and less interconnected hubs, factoring into the decay of the server. Laissez faire content creation might have slipped area changes into the module past the DM Team, but even if that were true, it wouldn't provide a very fruitful point of discussion to the situation at hand. It could lend itself to further organizational improvements and to the "underlying problems" Alanna alluded to in her post on page 3.

Yeah, one of the biggest peeves for me as a designer for the last two years was anything that contributed to spread. As soon as a new point of interest for rp was established outside one of the more central hubs, this pony was prone to snap.

Cutting down on the spread is not an easy thing, as just removing areas will make players of characters who were involved in them understandably upset. My opinion was that you want to diversify a city like Cordor, so that they support a greater variety of rp and character types. Then focus at least three truly active city-dms on it, with the many other DMs being encouraged to conduct a lot of small events and plots in support.

What I was hoping for with that method, is that other hubs would still be able to provide a base for much enjoyed roleplay like that of the elves and dwarves. However, the lure of opportunity through designing the city to be more diverse and through sheer dm presence would turn that city into the central server hub. Even if you have a character who made his home in another place, you would visit often. And the designers would work hard to create a city that gave you an ic reason to visit often, not only because you wanted to be in the place of activity.

In the end, if it would be implemented correctly and it hopefully did work, roleplay would have been very easy to find, a lot of rp opportunities would have arisen through the diversity, and players would have begun to take greater initiative to create roleplay themselves in the central server hub.

That was basically the simplification of my proposal. One of the big obstacles, and I think one of the main reasons it never got there, was it would have required a good amount of storyline railroading. The player character development as the driving force simply was not an effective or in any way reliable method to accomplish that.

The cause and effect is likely more complex, but not by much. I think that a large playerbase wanted a larger server, and so the small development team at the time got started, but it was a horrendously slow process and when other factors contributed to a shrinking of the playerbase, the expansion of the server did not accomodate and continued expanding with a shrinking playerbase and so we would up with a server too big for the playerbase. We have done some culling since then (actand, illithids for example), but more could stand to be done. We collectively think differently about the server from the way we thought about it before, likely due to sheer experience and watching things unfold.

Except for Disco. I suspect he knew all along but let we puerile children make our own mistakes.

viewtopic.php?f=103&t=82027

Here is the WIP of the Great Ruathymni Timeline available as a player resource. It is mostly correct and complete, but needs revision and addition of more player involvement and so on, which I am still consolidating. But after about the 20th draft, I am feeling it is good enough to post because I won't be shuffling things around too much (except maybe dates, which are not as important as the content.)

Burnin, I love you. That timeline is amazing and in my eyes, gives a great respect to War Knights. Also loving how you can see the influence of known PC actions in the area. Thank you for making this.

<3

It's still a work in progress, and the disclaimer is that it is "mostly" accurate, with tinges of subjective information for the region. The DM version of the timeline is accurate and gives both sides of the story, while the player resource is heavily Ruathym-biased.

[Edit 1]: More information about the Hidden Glade (thanks Dead!), the Orcusian cult, and potentially more of the WK (if I can find information) will be added once I get it together.

[Edit 2]: And more about Wiltun stuff and the Jarl Wardens and knights and stuff. I'm missing a lot of player things.

On a less positive note, I was just informed that some players are being kind of rude and insulting in party chat to each other and DMs. Not cool, guys.

Leaders and the Future of Amia

Who is online