Conflict and mass PvP.

An area to facilitate free-form feedback on systems (in-game or out) related to Arelith.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs, Contributors

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Dungeon Master
Dungeon Master
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by The GrumpyCat » Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:54 am

Your point is well made, and very accuate. I will put to you my counter points

1) To a... /small/ extent some of this is already the case. Player changes are exceedingly rare, so your point is valid still to a degree. But I feel I should mention they have been known to happen.

Consideration with player changes has to be taken into account re Work, Setting and Balence.

2) Work: - A massive battle in Cordor involving say, exploding the Cordor Palace would mean Irongron would have to remake chunks of Cordor, Dms would have to run the event, we'd have to make new pcs ect...

3) Setting - What roll does the change have in the setting? Killing the King and replacing him with say, a Drow Matron would just not be possible. (Unless you're being VERY smart/cunning/wierd about it). This blurrs into Balence a bit-

4) Balence: How does this effect the playerability of the game? Players kill the King, Bob Cordor, Jon's LG Paladin identical Twin Brother (gasp!) takes over, and instigates a series of rules utterly draconian to anyone who isn't also Lawful Good. with the help of LG player mages, they put up a Mythal around that automaticaly stops anyone who isn't LG from entering Cordor. This may make 101% sense to the characters involved, it's what they want. But in playability terms, it cuts off the Cordor start to a lot of potential pcs, and also hampers how intersting the city could be. Or to use another example - in theory 'fixing' Benwick sounds grand, getting rid of the Hellportal and such - but ultimatly that's one of the primary ways in to a MASSIVE dungeon, so we have to consider the ramifications of that too.

5) Also this will come with accusations of Bias. It doesn't matter how much work was put into it, how much effort, how much lack of metagaming, how much genuine, honest goodness roleplay was involved - there'll always be people who say "Well yes of Course the Tormatar won, Babylon System is the Vampire is Irongron's son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/second cousin twice removed! And they're in a massive Discord with all the DMs who are also members of their faction and look at all the pretty red string on my cork board!"
And look - to an extent we can roll our eyes and go 'haters gonna hate' and move on. I'm not a believer that we should lower ourselves to the most cynical, selfish voice in the room. But dealing with these accusations takes time, and energy and dealing with them on a regular basis will lead to burnout on the part of DMs, and very bad feelings on the part of the community.

Again, I'm not against player lead changes - I'm certainly not against players trying to change things, but such changes by neccecity can't be too frequent - at least not when they carry any serious weight.
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:53 am

Ironically, we shouldn't be dictating the outcome of conflict at a narrative via PvP victors and losers (I know). It should be by the entirely subjective weight of the quality of the storytelling and roleplay by each side.

Benwick didn't fall because paladins were out-PvPed.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by -XXX- » Sat Aug 20, 2022 8:44 am

Seven Sons of Sin wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:53 am
Ironically, we shouldn't be dictating the outcome of conflict at a narrative via PvP victors and losers (I know). It should be by the entirely subjective weight of the quality of the storytelling and roleplay by each side.

Benwick didn't fall because paladins were out-PvPed.
"My RP > ur RP. Lemme win RIGHT NOW!!!"
Organically formed conflict needs some objective measure to arbitrate, because otherwise there's the risk of a stalemate in case all parties refuse to yield.

Benwick/Udos/Wharftown didn't fall because of RP either. Players have been served an executive decision made by the Team and that was it.
Those storylines would not have played out the way they did if players had any actual say in them either.

User avatar
Dreams
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:13 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Dreams » Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:24 am

Wharftown absolutely DID happen due to RP. There was a huge amount of relevant RP that leads into that whole situation and outcome. It was also very clear that that's where the story was going at the time.

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by -XXX- » Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:58 am

Dreams wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:24 am
Wharftown absolutely DID happen due to RP. There was a huge amount of relevant RP that leads into that whole situation and outcome. It was also very clear that that's where the story was going at the time.
Wharftown happened because Irongron wanted to make a point about players disrespecting the setting. It was a drastic OOC response to persisting patterns of undesired player conduct.

Claiming otherwise is revisionist history. Or would you like to try and sell us all on how your character summoned the Amnian fleet to win the day?

User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:29 pm

Well, before we get distracted by Wharftown theories (which I love . . . THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE SCULLY!) I would be interested in a revamped war system if controllable areas are off the table.

While having no experience with coding, I'd be more then happy to help if the coding Gods (yes you Sincra) desire a mere mortals sacrifice upon the alter of progress.

Though I have heard the war system is super old and there is much hesitation in messing with something few understand.

User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Hazard » Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:36 pm

I was there and I saw everything.
Wharftown happened because of

User avatar
Marsi
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Marsi » Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:40 pm

-XXX- wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:58 am
Dreams wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:24 am
Wharftown absolutely DID happen due to RP. There was a huge amount of relevant RP that leads into that whole situation and outcome. It was also very clear that that's where the story was going at the time.
Wharftown happened because Irongron wanted to make a point about players disrespecting the setting. It was a drastic OOC response to persisting patterns of undesired player conduct.

Claiming otherwise is revisionist history. Or would you like to try and sell us all on how your character summoned the Amnian fleet to win the day?
I mean, what do you want? The Amnian bombardment and the Team-managed destruction/final battle were a response to something entirely escalated by players. Dreams is completely right. I kept a painstaking contemporaneous IC archive of political commentary, I am deeply familiar with the blow by blow and the chain of causality and would love to hear more about who is revising history here.

You're trying to refute these epic events as examples of player agency by pointing out that the Team ultimately is the one that edits the map. Yes we all know this is true, and of course there is an underlying or adjacent managerial reason why the Team accepts a course of events as warranting the changing of the server, but players had a lot more say over these things than you're giving them credit for. Its disingenuous to assert Wharftown, or even Benwick (for which I was also present), were just shallow plots-by-mandate.

If things had gone slightly differently at any one of many junctures Wharftown would still be here, and if that's not enough of a display of player agency I don't really know what is.

Why should the great bell of Beaulieu toll when the shadows were neither short nor long?


User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:03 pm

Edens_Fall wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:29 pm
Well, before we get distracted by Wharftown theories (which I love . . . THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE SCULLY!) I would be interested in a revamped war system if controllable areas are off the table.

While having no experience with coding, I'd be more then happy to help if the coding Gods (yes you Sincra) desire a mere mortals sacrifice upon the alter of progress.

Though I have heard the war system is super old and there is much hesitation in messing with something few understand.
Yeah! I'm quoting myself! 😆

Anyway, having pondered the idea more there was a few thoughts on how to make wars interesting while trying to reduce player abuse and PvP.

War is a drain on any economy. While at war a settlement suffers a set loss of resources and gold based on citizenship levels (much like the exile system). If resources or the coffers go empty the settlement auto looses the war. This would keep Wars from being declared and lasting forever.

If a settlement surrenders or loses a War any brokage land holdings are lost and reopened for bid. The reason a holding does not go to the victor is to avoid players starting wars for the sole reason of taking a castle with the reduced cost of waging a War vs bidding. This would also add more weight and consequence to a conflict.

When War is declared citizens of the rival settlement are given a Pariah type status (not exile), reducing there access to shops and if possible restricting their access to resource clerks.

Settlement PC/NPC citizen PvP deaths carry no weight in the War system. Thus reducing the ganking of low lvl or non-involved players by opposing settlements.

The Death of the settlement leader (or maybe the leader and appointed government PCs?) will result in the loss of the War, with a large penalty of coin and resources being paid to the winning settlement's coffers.

A settlement leader can elect to surrender, in which case a reduced amount is paid to the Victor vs them being killed.

A settlement leader can vassal their settlement to the rival in which case no payments are made. This vassalage is on a set timer and will be auto released after the time expires. Instead of a timer th3 vassalage can be linked to the current settlement leader, so if they are voted out the effect ends.

A time limit will be aplied to reduce amount of times a settlement can declare War.

If a settlement loses a war, a timer will be aplied to keep another settlement from declaring war upon them.

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by -XXX- » Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:36 pm

Marsi wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:40 pm
I mean, what do you want? The Amnian bombardment and the Team-managed destruction/final battle were a response to something entirely escalated by players. Dreams is completely right. I kept a painstaking contemporaneous IC archive of political commentary, I am deeply familiar with the blow by blow and the chain of causality and would love to hear more about who is revising history here.

You're trying to refute these epic events as examples of player agency by pointing out that the Team ultimately is the one that edits the map. Yes we all know this is true, and of course there is an underlying or adjacent managerial reason why the Team accepts a course of events as warranting the changing of the server, but players had a lot more say over these things than you're giving them credit for. Its disingenuous to assert Wharftown, or even Benwick (for which I was also present), were just shallow plots-by-mandate.

If things had gone slightly differently at any one of many junctures Wharftown would still be here, and if that's not enough of a display of player agency I don't really know what is.
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=32260&hilit#p254169
Here Irongron outlines how this was an OOC response to an OOC problem.

The moment the team grabbed the reins all payer agency went out of the window. Players trying to take credit there is as exasperating as it is showing of a general lack of self awareness on their part.

Which is actually all relevant to the topic at hand. We are missing an objective measure for settling IG conflict. PvP gets summarily dismissed as such by a large chunk of player base, while turtle-defense outlasting the opposition followed by revisionist history propaganda seems to be the method of choice for many - which would've been bad enough already, but to make things even worse it's rarely kept purely IC either (your attempt at asserting your "credentials" by keeping a collection of history records IC was just priceless there).

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Dungeon Master
Dungeon Master
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by The GrumpyCat » Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:24 pm

-XXX- wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:36 pm
Marsi wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:40 pm
I mean, what do you want? The Amnian bombardment and the Team-managed destruction/final battle were a response to something entirely escalated by players. Dreams is completely right. I kept a painstaking contemporaneous IC archive of political commentary, I am deeply familiar with the blow by blow and the chain of causality and would love to hear more about who is revising history here.

You're trying to refute these epic events as examples of player agency by pointing out that the Team ultimately is the one that edits the map. Yes we all know this is true, and of course there is an underlying or adjacent managerial reason why the Team accepts a course of events as warranting the changing of the server, but players had a lot more say over these things than you're giving them credit for. Its disingenuous to assert Wharftown, or even Benwick (for which I was also present), were just shallow plots-by-mandate.

If things had gone slightly differently at any one of many junctures Wharftown would still be here, and if that's not enough of a display of player agency I don't really know what is.
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=32260&hilit#p254169
Here Irongron outlines how this was an OOC response to an OOC problem.

The moment the team grabbed the reins all payer agency went out of the window. Players trying to take credit there is as exasperating as it is showing of a general lack of self awareness on their part.

Which is actually all relevant to the topic at hand. We are missing an objective measure for settling IG conflict. PvP gets summarily dismissed as such by a large chunk of player base, while turtle-defense outlasting the opposition followed by revisionist history propaganda seems to be the method of choice for many - which would've been bad enough already, but to make things even worse it's rarely kept purely IC either (your attempt at asserting your "credentials" by keeping a collection of history records IC was just priceless there).
Re Wharftown: There absolutly was player agency. Maybe the agency was with the wrong players... but it was there, and around the entire event we ran lots of events for players in general.

Re Benwick: I wasn't a DM at that time, but I was a player on the Benwick side and, speaking personally? It did /feel/ there that yes, if we'd tried a few other things, earlier on, then Benwick might have lasted. But it didn't. Maybe that's just me, but it is how I feel none the less. I did feel like, even though we lost, we did have agency there. I trust the team.
We are missing an objective measure for settling IG conflict.
Sure. But that's a sticky one isn't it?
First we have to ask ourselves 'what conflict?' the conflict if 'lord death skull vs Lady Love Light!' or 'who took the cookie from the cookie jar?' or 'Oh mah gawds! Darren tottaly is making eyes and Haidi, when he's so totes with Jezzy but Jezzy is also givin' the lookies to Malissa...' or one of the many other conflicts that occur.

But presuming we're talking about conflict on the more epic scale, the more consequence we put on these things, the more salty/angry people will be. And again, to an extent there's definatly an argument of 'well suck a lemon, that's how things are.' But at the same time... do we really wanna deal with that a lot?
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

Babylon System is the Vampire
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Babylon System is the Vampire » Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:05 pm

The GrumpyCat wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:54 am
Your point is well made, and very accuate. I will put to you my counter points...

(cut short because you can read it just above)
I hope you don't mind a slight back and forth.

First let me start by saying the example I gave -should- be extremely rare, and there are plenty of smaller ways for players to have a satisfying impact on the setting. Or could be, if certain steps were taken to get the server to that point. Let me present what I would think could be a more common example.
A naval battle occurred one night off screen between an Amnian galleon and a ship that had no markings anyone recognized. The Amnians won, and while they didn't see the ship sink they are certain its fate is doomed. A prominent npc turns to the current head of the cordorian navy with this information, explaining they should be on the lookout for whatever information they could give on the ship as the area may have a new threat beyond the known pirates and the like.

Off in Guldorand, the prominent npc of the thayan embassy pulls aside a thayan pc for a private conversation. One of the Zulkirs back in Thay has been quietly sending ships to Maztica to capture slaves, ran into an Amnian Galleon in the middle of the night, and was severely crippled. It's now hidden in some cove within the Arelith Archipelago, and a group of outsiders needs to be hired to deal with it. Hopefully they find a way to get the slaves where they belong (from thays perspective at least), but most importantly it must be dealt with in a way that doesn't threaten the "thayans are simply honest merchants" agenda the country is currently pushing around the world.

From there, everything that happens is based off what players decide to do. You can spread its wings as far as you see fit, doing things like adding a prominent dagonian priest as one of the captured slaves and now involving pc dagonians, to involving pirates in some way that makes sense for them, ect ect. But the one thing that matters most here is that when all is said and done, the results of the story matter. Did the Cordorian navy figure out what was going on in time and make the thayans life hell for a while on the island? DId the Thayan pc betray the prominent thayan npc and lay all the blame at his feet, saving the thayans reputation somewhat and making a powerful friend of a zulkir back in thay along the way? Ect ect ect.
Now in this example, you are already set up for success with the server as is. It's just missing one key ingredient, pc connections to the key npcs. Sure, you can have some random Amnian Admiral show up and have some random thayan npc hunt down pcs playing thayans out of nowhere, but the story would have a bigger impact if the connection was already imbedded into the server and players knew who these npcs were. Here are the three steps I would take to get you there.
Step one: Pick a bunch of npcs, and give them current agendas. You could start with as low as a dozen, and I wouldn't go over 24 to 30 or so at any given time. Some of the stories should be deep and long, and take years for a resolution, while others could be wrapped up after a handful of events. Once an NPC is done, assuming they are not dead or in jail or something else with a sense of finality, they fade into the background again and a new npc crops up. I would also recommend appointing someone to the position of "story coordinator" so you have at least one person solely focused on ensuring things don't get too jumbled or resemble each other too much. This position should be one of communication, not dictation, with the other dms, but it's good to have someone focused on keeping the big picture intact.

Step two: Connect them to pcs. For some groups, it would be as easy as just showing up when they are gathered at their base, like the king's liaison to the chancellor's office, or the Amnian admiral that is stationed in Cordor to ensure that the Amnian navy and the Cordorian navy are on the same page, or the head of the Thayan embassy that shows up in the area for thayan pcs in the embassy (if this doesn't exist it really should). For others, you would probably need to do something like have the npc archmagis of the tower take on apprentices, or the outspoken noble that is constantly badgering how the king is ruling in Cordor taking on a retainer, and so forth.

Step three: Use those connections to have the pc spread what's going on to the general player base, so anyone that wants to get involved has a chance to get involved. For an easy example, an archimage needs the blood of a pit fiend for an experiment they are conducting, but it needs to be affected in a way that only happens on they layer of hell x. He needs his apprentice to hire a group and lead them (or just send them) to that layer and get him the blood. No matter how it turns out or who goes on the mission, chances are at least someone is going to wonder why the archimage needs pit fiend blood specifically effected by layer of hell x, creating intrigue around the npc that you can certainly use later.

With this step, I wouldn't be afraid to use ooc communication if you find the pc is constantly going to the same group of friends over and over again. The role of this pc should be to spread information and fun, not horde it for themselves and their own group of friends.
Now, to get back to the big stuff briefly and address concerns 1-4, if you feel that someone has worked hard enough to get a chance at replacing a king or assassinating a prominent npc*, they are going to be ecstatic at the chance and you are likely going to be so ecstatic with them that you will find the extra work worth it. I don't think the work is going to be as hard as you described personally, especially in regard to the effect on the area, and more often than not that bit can be easily worked out by transferring an erf to the dm involved in the story and having them transfer it back with some slight updates to show something happened. It doesn't have to be a complete overhaul.

But back to the player. since they are ecstatic that's a good time to lay out the ground rules of what they can and can't do should they succeed in becoming king of Cordor or whatever. And you should reserve the right to add something down the line that you didn't foresee them doing to the list of things they can't do. Essentially though, they should understand two things; They can't make a city so draconian it becomes inhospitable toward folks who don't care about their storyline, and they should expect to lose eventually.

And that leaves concern 5. You are right, my first response would be to not worry about this too much or let it get you down, but not because I am immune to criticism or anything. The truth is a cry of favoritism 99% of the time is really a cry for help. They see folks doing cool things, they want to do cool things, but they don't know how to get involved and take initiative themselves. Unfortunately, sometimes ego doesn't allow one to word it that way. That being said, I think having pcs connected to the npcs will address this in the best way possible, because not only can they apply (icly!) to those positions themselves giving them the open door that may have been just what they needed to take that next step, you are also encouraging the pcs in those positions to spread out to the entire player base and not keep everything for themselves and their group of friends, which means even the most unlikely movers and shakers among the player base will at some point or another have a chance to get involved as a tag along and get a good example of how things are done. This is the sort of thing that happens organically on smaller servers, but when you have over 200 players on at the same time at times like Arelith does, sometimes you need to give a little push to ensure it happens.

Just to wrap up, I thought about writing this in a way that directly responded to your points in order, and even got a good chunk of that done last night before I hit delete after 45 minutes or so, but I felt doing it this way could address your counters without getting lost in the weeds of the little details. I hope it worked in that sense!




* Completely unnecessary reading, Just Babylon babbling on!

Just to give an example on how I would run an assassination attempt were I the one fielding requests. This is assuming that the initial checks, does doing this make sense for the character beyond just padding their reputation and will this create an interesting story line for the server, are met.

So, a player says, "I want to assassinate the leader of the iron throne." The team likes where he is coming from and feels win or lose it can spiral into an interesting story for the server, but it also can't be too easy.

Step one, inform the player that they will have three opportunities to make their move, but they need to find the clues in game as to when those are. An easy example here is the leader of the iron throne is going to make a speech on expanding the docks on date x, he is going to celebrate his patron deity's favorite holiday on date y, and he will be getting together with an old friend/lover who is visiting from back home (wherever his home is) for dinner at the eagle on date z. These dates and events aren't going to be told to them, they are going to need to enlist the aid of other pcs to figure this out, they just know that they are going to have three npc events to look out for.

Step two, they found out about the dinner at the eagle, and that is where they are going to make their move. Hopefully they have a good plan, because it's not going to be easy and if they fail, they are going to get a permadeath. As long as they know the odds, and the stakes going in, that shouldn't be an issue at all.

Step three, let the chaos consume the eagle for 10 minutes and enjoy the results. Win or lose, the character has told a cool story that by necessity involved others.

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Dungeon Master
Dungeon Master
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by The GrumpyCat » Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:23 pm

So in principle again, I really like your ideas BSitV (Just calling you Babylon after this). To the extent that I feel we're almost on the same page here. In theory a lot of what you are saying sounds very cool, and something to keep in mind. Hell, honestly I've kinda run stuff like this? The Queen Quest in Cordor (where Jennifer Eldren was crowned) the old Guldorand Druid story (where the blue druids were driven out of Guldorand, and guldorand got it's docks).

The problem I think that can happen with these stories is that they don't take into account for the franetic pace things can change, both in Game and IRL.

Both my last 'big quests' I was running I either had to dump or cut short because I'm currently the mother of a toddler who's sleep patterns aren't great. I honestly can't tell how much energy, day by day, I'll have. Other Dms have personal issues that drag them out of Game stuff too.
Then there's players, who may also have to depart due to RL situations, and also who's characters may change or even be removed from play. Heck, entire factions could also vanish in the right situation.
And finally there's Devs. Even just changing NPCs over can take a little work, and only a small amount of people have access to make such changes. If, for example, Irongron is on holiday when this goes down - it doesn't matter how good the event is, that NPC isn't going to be deleted/swapped out until he returns.

And DM Energy Levels really cannot be underestimated. We all put on this nice vaneer of proffesionalism, (well, most do, I'm just awful at it but whatever) but ultimatly we're a lot of volunteers. We don't get pay. We don't get any real perks. The only thing we tend to get is thanks (if we're lucky) or an unending torrent of abuse (if we arn't.) DMs have a lot of things to do, some of which we do out of duty (reports, rule work ect) some of which we sneak in out of fun (little events.)
Step one: Pick a bunch of npcs, and give them current agendas. You could start with as low as a dozen, and I wouldn't go over 24 to 30 or so at any given time. Some of the stories should be deep and long, and take years for a resolution, while others could be wrapped up after a handful of events. Once an NPC is done, assuming they are not dead or in jail or something else with a sense of finality, they fade into the background again and a new npc crops up. I would also recommend appointing someone to the position of "story coordinator" so you have at least one person solely focused on ensuring things don't get too jumbled or resemble each other too much. This position should be one of communication, not dictation, with the other dms, but it's good to have someone focused on keeping the big picture intact.
On the Dm section of the forums, I swear we have like, three or four threads designed for trying to give current NPCs personalities, for us to follow up on. We do try. But we allways fail. Because we go 'that's a good idea!' and then none of us have time/energy/get distracted by other things. I mean, we do have DMs who have 'signature npcs' (Cuan from Avalon Soul, Mila Brown from Titania, me for Jennifer Eldren...) but that's as close as it gets.
And I mean, this idea above sounds, to be honest? And I cannot stress this enough - ABSOLUTLY. BLOODY. AWSOME. I mean that. It sounds amazing. I'd LOVE this to happen.
But I am unsure that our DM team - even at it's height of 20 people, had the time/energy/resources to divert to this... maybe I'm wrong? I can talk to the team and we can try this at some point? I do think some sort of big event might be cool. Again though - this really does depend on having a large DM team who arn't suffering horrific burnout from this or that.



To finish I just really want to stress - I am worried that my replies may be coming across as 'NO WE CAN'T/SHOULDN'T DO THIS!'

That is really not the case.

It's not really my aim to naysay these ideas, because honestly there's some good ones? But rather to just bring up the obsticles that stand in our way, and my concerns about this or that as we go forward (or attempt to.)

I really think the base part of your idea, rare events that can make changes to the server - even if the changes are relitivly small - is absolutly excellent Babylon. And it's honestly something I'd absolutly love to see done more, if that's possible. I'll happily go sell it to Irongron and anyone else. But how often/how big/how smooth these changes occur at must be kept in mind.
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

User avatar
TroubledWaters
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:10 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by TroubledWaters » Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:53 pm

The GrumpyCat wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:23 pm
On the Dm section of the forums, I swear we have like, three or four threads designed for trying to give current NPCs personalities, for us to follow up on. We do try. But we allways fail. Because we go 'that's a good idea!' and then none of us have time/energy/get distracted by other things. I mean, we do have DMs who have 'signature npcs' (Cuan from Avalon Soul, Mila Brown from Titania, me for Jennifer Eldren...) but that's as close as it gets.
Making consistent NPC personalities across DMs is a ton of work! They also create big PC crowds wherever they are seen, creating a ton of extra management hassle for DMs to deal with and lag.

Some of the best DM interactions I've seen is small stuff, like a DM spawning a couple of interesting NPCs that say some things before you kill them. These "mini-events" can be low-investment, though fun and interesting ways to help players feel like they did something meaningful on the server. If a DM spawns some random Banite pilgrims or Cordorian villagers or whatnot, it's possible for a player to smite them or give them some sort of assistance and feel like they are accomplishing their character's mission without having to go out and find somebody to gank.

Another great part about this type of interaction is that nobody has to worry about continuity or agendas for individual NPCs, saving headaches all around. It's also a small enough interaction that it's probably over and done with by the time that players involved inevitably summon their friends via discord, so they'll probably have to just deal with it themselves.

User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:21 am

The GrumpyCat wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:23 pm
Stuff Said
I always wondered who ran the Jennifer Eldren NPC and Quest. Super big props for that BTW, really need to do a plot to help her take the throne but I am distracted myself again.

I know the idea of Event DMs has been brought up before, though I can't recall off the top of my head why it was shut down. Basically DMs whose main job is Events, Plotlines, and Aiding Players in personal Plots and mini-events. If the staff's time is spread so thin, perhaps compartmentalizing the workload would help?

It can even be on a rotation to help with DM burnout. Six Months working the Admin side and then six months as an event DM. Rinse and repeat?

Just a thought.
Last edited by Edens_Fall on Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Marsi
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Marsi » Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:09 am

-XXX- wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:36 pm
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=32260&hilit#p254169
Here Irongron outlines how this was an OOC response to an OOC problem.

The moment the team grabbed the reins all payer agency went out of the window. Players trying to take credit there is as exasperating as it is showing of a general lack of self awareness on their part.

Which is actually all relevant to the topic at hand. We are missing an objective measure for settling IG conflict. PvP gets summarily dismissed as such by a large chunk of player base, while turtle-defense outlasting the opposition followed by revisionist history propaganda seems to be the method of choice for many - which would've been bad enough already, but to make things even worse it's rarely kept purely IC either (your attempt at asserting your "credentials" by keeping a collection of history records IC was just priceless there).
You're now saying you don't believe Wharftown is evidence of players settling conflict among themselves. That's fair. I don't disagree. We can't meaningfully effect a military conflict as players and if we could, it would probably be Cordor that's a ruin.

The thing is, no-one is trying to make that argument with you. No-one is trying to take credit for personally destroying Wharftown. You are fixated on the fact of the Amnian armada and ultimate destruction of the town and seem eager to dress down an imagined player for claiming they themselves did that.

But neither I nor Dreams are remotely attempting to take that stance and don't have to for you to be wrong. Let's remember you made the sweeping statement that the players had no say and were just handed a decree. That is not how it happened and you don't know what you're talking about. The way you characterise the event -- as if the Team just got fed up with some nuisance players and prosecuted a bare-minimum plot to justify the removal of a problem area with or without the characters involved -- is simply untrue, and is, for someone who seems to enjoy levelling the accusation, a completely revisionist account.

Why should the great bell of Beaulieu toll when the shadows were neither short nor long?


User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by -XXX- » Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:18 am

Marsi wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:09 am
Let's remember you made the sweeping statement that the players had no say and were just handed a decree. That is not how it happened and you don't know what you're talking about. The way you characterise the event -- as if the Team just got fed up with some nuisance players and prosecuted a bare-minimum plot to justify the removal of a problem area with or without the characters involved -- is simply untrue, and is, for someone who seems to enjoy levelling the accusation, a completely revisionist account.
Read again the linked Irongron's statement and see that is indeed what happened : viewtopic.php?f=37&t=32260&hilit#p254169

And I'd dare oppose your claim that I didn't know what was talking about because:
- I was playing in Benwick when Thomas Miller surrendered Light Keep to a coven of infernalists staged in Guldorand (now known as Westcliff) and I do recall him nowhere to be found after that up until the point when the keep got overrun by the legions of Avernus.
- I was playing in Wharftown when Armenius Caedre sent a jar full of prisoner heads to King Edward as his response to negotiation attempts and I do also recall him nowhere to be found after that up until the point when the fishing village got wiped off the face of the island by the Amnian fleet.

What gives me a pause here* are:
a) claims of player agency - as GrumpyCat already alluded, if there was any it was with the wrong players = "about them without them" kind of RP between characters with no skin in the game.
b) claims that things could have been averted through RP - that's not how things actually played out in either case and therefore remains a hypothetical claim. Once the events got locked in the perpetrators vanished and I honestly don't know what anyone else could have done to make any difference at that point before things get out of hand.


Don't get me wrong I didn't mind that any of this happened back then nor do I mind it now. These are indeed epic and memorable events in Arelith's history that the server would have been much poorer without.

What I'd advocate here is for this kind of thing to happen MORE OFTEN. IG conflicts tend to escalate and reach a stalemate at the same time, bleeding into a needless and avoidable OOC animosity. I'd really like to see the DMs step in and liberally arbitrate through NPC intervention at that point - heck even take sides (unapologetic blatant DM favouritism - bring it!).
I do believe that the looming threat of a DM stepping in and declaring "you lose" would strongly incentivize players to finally seek conflict resolution among themselves.


*to clarify, I don't mind the absence of player agency or the lack of the option to avert these events. I don't like the claims that these were there as I consider them to be disingenouous
Last edited by -XXX- on Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dreams
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:13 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Dreams » Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:52 am

Nothing disingenuous about it. Players had agency, you didn’t see the bigger picture. IG’s statement and the idea that players had agency in the situation aren’t mutually exclusive.

Saying that things couldn’t have gone differently if players took different actions is ridiculous nonsense.

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:27 am

Edens_Fall wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:23 pm
Tesla420 wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:05 am
In my personal opinion the natural progression of a faction involved in a city is.

Start a nobody.

Grow followers.

Take a position of power.

Take a place in government.

Run government.

Recruit for an army.

Form an army.

????

Just feels like the end of the story. The best part. The climax. Where you take your victory over your city and you go head to head against another powerful PC who also formed a faction is completely missing? Am I the only way that feels that way? I just wish I could affect the in game world in a more meaningful way.
Your not the only one. It's why we have so many moments in the past where the staff has had to step in and force the servers political neutrality when settlements break out into war.
Yeah, so - this is just one story. The example illustrated fits within a very classic hero's story, a very faction-oriented story, and a very macho militaristic story.

At every stage of that journey, two characters could go in wildly different directions. So too could different factions.

Factions aren't all about "conquest" - to incentivize mechanics around that would be problematic, and in fact, is problematic thinking.

Conflict =/= PvP. PvP =/= conflict. Storytelling isn't linear, 1:1.

Espionage is a great example of conflict, that isn't really PvP. and UD/Surface raids are great examples of PvP not really meaning... conflict (it's just two blobs of 30s swarming each other. they're so devoid of actual narrative beyond the handful of organizers, I can't even. it's a pox on us)

That being said, the best examples of "war" are usually during DM events, where you have large amounts of PCs scattered over wide areas. In fact, I think any "war-time" scenario should be directly overseen by a DM, I think we'd be richer for it.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by -XXX- » Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:55 am

Dreams wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:52 am
Nothing disingenuous about it. Players had agency, you didn’t see the bigger picture. IG’s statement and the idea that players had agency in the situation aren’t mutually exclusive.

Saying that things couldn’t have gone differently if players took different actions is ridiculous nonsense.
It is disingenouous. In both cases the mayor characters removed agency* from other citizens by not logging back in while still holding onto their office, denying them the major avenue for course correction.

If your argument was that the players had agency when voting for a character who was lying to them and just failed to "see the bigger picture", then I'm going to call ridiculous nonsense there.

Sure, you can always say that things could have gone differently if players took different actions when you backtrack events far enough.
At some point it becomes just a generalized empty sentiment though.

*be it unwittingly or intentionally

User avatar
Dreams
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:13 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Dreams » Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:35 am

-XXX- wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:55 am
In both cases the mayor characters removed agency* from other citizens by not logging back in while still holding onto their office, denying them the major avenue for course correction.

If your argument was that the players had agency
Yes, my argument was that the players had agency. You've even backtracked to the point where you're complaining about a limited amount of players having agency, rather than players not having agency. But really, it wasn't even limited to a small amount of players. There were a wide range of different things happening at that time, with different groups of players focusing in on different aspects in the months leading up to the big event.

It didn't come down to "this one guy made a bad decision then didn't log in", it came down to a situation where player choices impacted the world to such a degree that a change was made. That is huge! That is the result of player agency on the server.

Good Character
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:37 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Good Character » Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:13 am

At this risk of this thread getting derailed further, I see what both XXX and Dreams/Marsi are saying.

Wharftown got nuked because it devitated from the setting. When it happened players there had no choice to reverse that outcome - they couldn't negotiate out, they couldn't fight back, etc. because Irongron made the decision. However, that outcome came to be due to the players' choice. They understood what would come out of it and yet still did it.

Back on-topic and towards Grumpy, a setting needs to exist and maintained. Prominent NPCs from King Edward to Houses Freth/Claddath to Amn to Gracklstugh due this fabulously, but this means they're mainstays and cannot be altered.

My most exciting times have revolved around settlements where the players are solely in power like Bendir and Brogedenstein (though you could argue they do have the silver(?) dragon and Mithral Hall semi-controlling). I felt like friends and internal-strife meant something.

I think we're missing settlements like that. It also feels when players attempt to create things similar to them it's either entirely shunned (i.e. half-orc camp at Wharftown before the existing half-orc camp or Shadow Wharftown per rumors), or has never any intention of being mechanically supported through the settlement system (which is mostly understandable due to development limitations).

User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Hazard » Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:42 am

Good Character wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:13 am
Wharftown got nuked because it devitated from the setting. When it happened players there had no choice to reverse that outcome - they couldn't negotiate out.
Actually, a certain group of players were given a choice to accept defeat. If the Mayor had surrendered after losing instead of going into hiding and refusing to end his war, I believe things could have been different. There were also the player choices that led to the whole situation in the first place, like allowing Drow, Imps and others into the town.

Maybe most players had no choice, but as someone who was in the middle of it, it felt like a very real and reasonable response to what was going on IC. It all felt IC to me. My character actually warned of this outcome long before the conflict even started, word for word. To say it was not based on RP I think is just objectively false.

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by -XXX- » Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:05 am

Dreams wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:35 am
It didn't come down to "this one guy made a bad decision then didn't log in"
Hazard wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:42 am
Actually, a certain group of players were given a choice to accept defeat. If the Mayor had surrendered after losing instead of going into hiding and refusing to end his war, I believe things could have been different.
I rest my case.
Hazard wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:42 am
Maybe most players had no choice, but as someone who was in the middle of it, it felt like a very real and reasonable response to what was going on IC. It all felt IC to me. My character actually warned of this outcome long before the conflict even started, word for word. To say it was not based on RP I think is just objectively false.
My character wanted Myon to fall from a sky for a very long time and would often proclaim such. You don't see me claiming that it happened as a result of years long RP "effort" though - that would have been silly.

Similarly those supposed months lasting epic server-wide build ups leading to these events might look good in IG history books but didn't really happen.
There was some OOC chitter-chatter on the forums preluding Benwick.
Wharftown was an immediate response to both IC and OOC outrage.
Both events played out over the span of RL weeks, not months.

User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Hazard » Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:13 am

-XXX- wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:05 am
Dreams wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:35 am
It didn't come down to "this one guy made a bad decision then didn't log in"
Hazard wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:42 am
Actually, a certain group of players were given a choice to accept defeat. If the Mayor had surrendered after losing instead of going into hiding and refusing to end his war, I believe things could have been different.
I rest my case.
Hazard wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:42 am
Maybe most players had no choice, but as someone who was in the middle of it, it felt like a very real and reasonable response to what was going on IC. It all felt IC to me. My character actually warned of this outcome long before the conflict even started, word for word. To say it was not based on RP I think is just objectively false.
My character wanted Myon to fall from a sky for a very long time and would often proclaim such. You don't see me claiming that it happened as a result of years long RP "effort" though - that would have been silly.

Similarly those supposed months lasting epic server-wide build ups leading to these events might look good in IG history books but didn't really happen.
There was some OOC chitter-chatter on the forums preluding Benwick.
Wharftown was an immediate response to both IC and OOC outrage.
Both events played out over the span of RL weeks, not months.
There might have been a point where no one had control anymore, but it was still players who voted for the "I'm going to let monsters in." candidate. To me, that is RP and IC. That is player control.

Post Reply