Gone with the Win - CoA & PvP
-
I think what would help stabilize the faction situation is to give the current factions a role pertaining how it functions relevant to the city. Make that it's primary focus instead of worrying about conflict as that can arise by itself. Let's demonstrate what this would look like.
Sheriffs - Solving crimes that go on within the city walls pretty much self explanatory.
Red Harts - Standing Army in charge of protecting Arabel from outside threats like the Purple Dragons were before them.
Mages Guild - Researching and discovering new magical lore to benefit Arabel while using this to expand their influence on the city.
Company of the Gear - Innovators who come up with inventions whose goal is to break Arabel's dependency on magic. Great potential for a rivalery with the Mages Guild here.
The only faction I can't see fitting into this is the Forsaken Legion as they are pretty much big baddie necromancers who were meant to provide an antithesis to the Red Harts. Use them as a common enemy that all the factions can unite against. The point is that V4 is gonna be here for some time and its clear that a good amount of the playerbase is tired of faction wars and the longer it contiunes to be the focus the less interested people are gonna have in playing the server.This looks like an IG achievable solution.
And considering the acceptance of PC influence on the setting it might just work.
That is why I like the current setting.
-
i still believe Aldrien has hit the nail right on the head..
i was talking to someone who just returned to arabel after a break, and the one thing i have noticed is that many times it can be difficult to get groups together or be included in groups that are questing
this is because we have a lower population base now, and setting up factions in direct opposition (some are set up to pvp on sight) will mean that some people have no choice but to be excluded from certain activities.
the problem is not the pvp, or the way it is done, as has been pointed out it has always gone on and it always will, the problem now is making sure people have something to do, and have someone to do it with
what makes things work, one: finding people, two: finding stuff to do with those people (and pvp can be included in doing something if it is done right and does not chase people away, Shea pointed out in another important threat that pvp does not always mean killing, it can be the dance of words)
we still have all the things needed for both in arabel, and that is why it is still prospering, what we do not need to do is argue about what is better the past or now, we need to sit objectively look at what worked and why it worked and incorporate those into our individual play styles
if you have a rock solid character who is rude to everyone, sticking to character is a good thing, but not when you are the only representative of the server to a new player (and yes we still get them) it may not be a good thing, it may be be good to keep one eye on our ooc side and make allowances in certain circumstances. in the 55/55 days that was not needed, when you seen 55 on then, you knew another 100 players were in the line to get in, now what you see is what you get, if someone is chased away now they are lost, in the good old days someone gets chased away there were 5 people in line to take their place
if we as players want the server to continue on as long as possible we will keep these tiny things in mind when we do anything
-
. I think the "lack of common goals/enemies" is a CAUSE of why there seems to be unconnected stories, as I described.
I don't think it's due to a push to conflict. Rather, I think it -may- have to do with an apparent shift to DMs perhaps wanting to support a larger number of player/faction plots (supporting the players doing awesome) as opposed to DMs creating fewer plots and dragging players into them.I dunno theres some pretty common goals/enemies. Lyss/The Rift s prettymuch universal (Various issues with, and widespread OOC avoidance of the plot aside and another discussion entirely). Grodd is another one, though less in the forefront these days.
When I say push for conflict, I reference somewhat how the factions are setup.
The Harts are jumped out right in front, hidebound by rules and regulations that automatically exclude them from working with at least one group, and definately a wider section of the base as well. The Legion comes up second here, as a monstrous group is inherently non-functional within the wider base, unless the server slides even further to what BG has coined as "coa x-men".
CoG is stated to be actively anti-mages, putting them out in 3rd.
The Sherriffs suffer abit, but not overmuch, and the Mage Guild are about the freest ones out there.
Its a heavily broken base, and most of these are heavily inclined (even the latter two) to be against any sort of unified front, flying in the face of what would make any sense ICly in terms of those common threats.
-
What is the correlation if any between a factions "Free-ness" and it's membership numbers and activity? As Black Rose has stated his ranking of factions by "Freedom" of association. I'm curious as to how they rank in terms of active members and plotting activity. Is there an inverse correlation or not at all?
He ranks the Red Harts as least Free to associate.
Then Legion.
Then Cog.
And the Mages as free-est.
-
As I see it this ranking of freeness to associate indicates how much 'external conflict' is built-in in each faction. However, the more 'free' a faction is, the more it 'internal conflict' it has, because different types of character can more easily join. The total amount of conflict is roughly constant.
All the factions are set up to provide conflict (or 'interaction') between players. If you don't keep this in mind, you might be in for some disappointment if you try to make two or more factions work together against a common goal (either another faction, or 'the engine'), as invariable something will happen to break this alliance. If you think this is 'realistic' or 'forced', probablay depends on if you think "PvP" (Competitive Play) or "PvE" (Cooperative Play) is more Fun.
To me, RPGs should be about having Fun with others, and I personally think there's more 'Fun with others' in Cooperative Play (where everyone wins/loses together), with of course some room for some rivalry, than in Competitive Play (and that's what makes them so much more interesting than more common games that are more fun in Competitive Play mode). But I know that for a lot of people this is not the case.
I see the reasons for having factions at all as mainly two-fold:
-) groups of players with some shared goals means events can easily be held that are more or less guaranteed a group of interested players. (intra-faction events (that can of course be open to hopefuls, and non-faction people that happen to share some of the factions goals ))
-) having several groups of people with opposed goals means you get dynamics, and you can put some players together and are more or less guarenteed an interesting event. (inter-faction events (of course, again not limited to the faction members))There's a third kind of event, one that isn't aligned with any faction's goals, but just threathens them all at some different level. Unfortunately with the current factions, these need to be massivile threathening to overcome the inter- and intra- faction-oppossed forces to get everyone's nose pointed the same way. And you can "only save the world so many times before it becomes old hat".
-
All of this Candy Glancing at V3 should stop imo. There were alot of good things which went missing, but there were also alot of good things that went away.
The Militia+PD+WW+KOTMS+Fezznick? was a combination that meant you COULDNT lose, because all those factions had more or less similar goals and ways to achieve them.
Alot of times, the Noble Houses stood empty, because they were so overused no one wanted to play them.That said, the main difference between then and now, would be the following;
If Arabel was overrun by Goblins, every faction would lose. Every Faction would lose if the Zhentarim took power. Hells, even the Thieves Guild, most of whom were wanted criminals, fought off the enemy.Now, if Arabel was taken over tomorrow by Lyssans, only the sheriffs and the Guild would lose. Meaning some new power would try and sweep in. If The Harts lose, only they lose. If the Legion loses, only the Legion loses. If the sheriffs lose, etc.
That, and all the characterization has been removed. Its concepts, not characters. Its toons, or Avatars. I remember the days when every character who had survived more than two months had funerals when they died, huge fights over loot unless someone had made a will, weeks and weeks of sadness.
Now, its Meh, oh well, we continue, for the most part. Sarasha, the oldest living character these days, is the first Ive seen gain a funeral in months and months. -
@O'louth:
snippity…..The Militia+PD+WW+KOTMS+Fezznick? was a combination that meant you COULDNT lose, because all those factions had more or less similar goals and ways to achieve them.
While they had similar goals and ways to achieve them, they were not a big happy well adjusted famiy.
There was non-violent conflict between all of those factions even when they were working together.
- The Militia thought the PD were in their business while the PDs acted like the Militia were local cops and they were some sort of FBI task force.
- The KotMS thought all the Militia were a bunch of lawless brutes that were just one act away from the wrath of Tyr being served up suspension style, while the Militia thought the KotMS should get out of their way so they could actually do law instead of pontificating about it.
- The War Wizards thought all the other law factions were generally incompetent, infiltrated, and slightly less of a nuisance than the enemy, and everyone else had varying opinions of the War Wizards between cool but stuck up to complete assholes without disguises.
- Fezznick was the benefactor of the Militia, but nobody really thought they should be doing much other than writing checks.
Each ultimately wanted mostly the same thing, but they had tremendously different views on the right way to get there. I may be giving too much credit, but it is my belief that they were designed that way and I think it was an excellent design. It seems far superior to the current set where everything looks like it was cut into slices with a dull knife by kids in the sandbox.
-
In ideal land.
The militia were supposed to be the citys guards, influenced upon by the citys folk. Somewhat blipped around cause inherently, it conflicts with being an adventurer, which is what PCs tend to do.
PDs were the agents of the Crwon, they enforced the crowns will, and were generally supposed to deal with things outside town. This got messed up by the in-hindsight poor idea of having them as an upgrade-rank from militias (until very late on, you had to be a militia, then promoted to Blade), along with the fact that in early v3, the city was still the focus point of the module and there wasn't all that much outside of it.
Also, the initial NPC leadership here (from canon) caused the two merge, as they were both heavy crown guys.
The War Wizards tended to keep their focus a bit more solidly, acting against more magical stuff (PCs being adventurers of course, magical stuff tended to overlap moreso then foreign espionage and so on).
The KotMS problems were that they had a lot of repetition. War Wizards handled magical (undead and infernal) threats, myriad adventurer//crusader factions already existed. Their position as judges was somewhat inconstant to the setting as a whole and decidedly arbitrary. Add single-class, single-alignment (and limited deity options even within that), and it was the least populated faction in v3.
On to nobles
Fezznick - got derailed a lot by a lack of supervision, and PCs that really didn't fit the concept well (and remained in it due to the prior point). While they managed to keep the crusader bits, they lost a substantial amount of their noblesse, and lawful leaning, and the efforts to re-reail it got themselves derailed when the assassination plot went up in arms. By the time it finally did get re-adjusted, it was a bit aimless and largely off-radar.
Thond - I'd say became another brick in the good guy wall because his non-lawful sides didn't get much panning out. As his public sides went, being the trademaster in a city, and very few (if any) plots that relegated around such drained it alot. About the best thought i recall from DMing times was to have Thond be the public front of the Harper faction, effectively merging the two (giving Thond a wider range of sneaky business, and the Harpers some NPC backup that wasn't quasi-random popins)
DeSchurr - Possibly the one faction that never really got derailed. Their main problem being was that you had Fezznick, the PDs, and DeSchurr all competing in that same adventuring field and it caused them all to blend into repetition. The DeSchurr-PD conflict over who should actually be warden of the north also fell alot into the backburner, or wasn't communicated very clearly.
Bhallir - Much as with Thond, the public face of the faction didn't really have enough steam to keep interest on its own. An actual merge with its corresponding pair-off would've helped. Also another Fezznick case where the facitons motivations and stances were switched and retconned around multiple times, and at times completely absent from use.
-
Now, past the history lessons, the free-ness of a faction (or rather, lack thereof0) becomes an issue because they all strive for (to return to the original point) a perfect adherence, or "the win".
The conflict points are not just there in factions, but they have been pushed to a blazing forefront, to the point of isolating all the groups from each other and preventing any sort of unison efforts, even those that would provide a venue for competitive rivalry and intrigue despite the unified goal.
Yes, there have been/maybe are Harts who do expand out into the non LG-world. There are probably Sherriffs who work with the less law-abiding. CoGers who get along with magic, etc. But they're against the grain, they're not the conceptual sorts of the faction, they're the equivalent of the druids who accept abberations, or the paladins who work undercover, the lawful evil Helmites, and so on.
Now, I'm not in the factions to expand heavily on that (can't even get one approved in app free month, seemingly), and where the influence comes from, but theres definately a pattern of exclusion and Win (or at least screw over everyone else) in how the factions on a whole seem to approach things, and their setup.
-
I agree with O'louth that the glorification of V3 should end.
V3 factions were representing a strong state where it was hard to change the setting. Was great sure, had a blast playing it.
V4 has endless possiblities to change things including work to unify factions. On a side note the DM interaction nowadays is overwhelming. Just send an idea per PM and get a positive response with suggestions on how to progress a plot.
V4 was a result from IG actions where Arabel was rebelling against Cormyr.It can be turned around through IG actions so please stop looking back at KoTMS and start working on it again (as at elast two players seem to be doing). Instead of dreaming of the splendour of the House of Dead in V3 join the Harks and the Eternal Order.
V4 > V3 every day of the week and twice on Mondays.
-
I must agree that the glorification of earlier versions needs to end. They weren't bad mind you, but people tend to look at things through rose colored glasses.
-
Grandpa: "gosh darn it sunny I sure do miss the good ol' days!"
Grandson:" You meen Polio, World wars, and segregation?"
-
I must agree that the glorification of earlier versions needs to end. They weren't bad mind you, but people tend to look at things through rose colored glasses.
-
Grandpa: "gosh darn it sunny I sure do miss the good ol' days!"
Grandson:" You meen Polio, World wars, and segregation?"
Yup. Cause something happend, instead of arse-settin.
Yes, the current non-locked-down faction system has the potential for great flexibility.
Doesnt mean that jack-all's happened. -
Grandpa: "gosh darn it sunny I sure do miss the good ol' days!"
Grandson:" You meen Polio, World wars, and segregation?"
Chnage isn't always for the better. Just look at past revolutions and the messes that came from some of them
-
I wouldn't say that v3 by any means was perfect (I've generally been quite public on calling the KotMS a silly holdover from a v2 questline that turned into a faction somehow, for instance). Theres a sliding scale though, and I believe that the civil war and events since have been an accelerating slide that has gone well past the ideal middle ground.
Total instability, while great in allowing PC actions to effect, in itself causes headaches to keep straight, and inherently, because change is so readily effected, it loses huge amounts of value and worth when it occurs.
-
It just occurred to me that part of what appears to be a problem on the server now is the same problem we have in much of the real world: Conflict is not allowed to continue to its inevitable conclusion.
In many places in the world today we have unrest and turmoil because various nations and international organizations have intervened in conflict to enforce "peace" leaving everyone involved in the conflict unsatisfied.
In the Civil War, nobody really won. A few folks lost and a bunch of folks won a bit, but there was no real single winner. So, it seems you have more of an armistice and less of a conclusion.
This doesn't work well in the real world and maybe the game world could learn from it. If that is going to happen sometime soon, great, and disregard all I said. Otherwise, maybe we just need a winner.
-
@Black:
Total instability, while great in allowing PC actions to effect, in itself causes headaches to keep straight, and inherently, because change is so readily effected, it loses huge amounts of value and worth when it occurs.
This is a great and sad truth. What we have now is the result of what was asked in v3. The setting was too stale and it was impossible to have an impact. Now it is possible, but as a side effect the setting is fluid, ever changing, and therefore it can be difficult to keep track with it. It's difficult to keep up with the changes, from a DM point of view, and meanwhile maintain consistency, and it is difficult to plunge in the setting for a player and let one be carried by the flow if such flow changes direction every months.
Is it still better than v3, and can it be improved (and how)? That's something you players have to answer.
-
You traded in what made sense for the setting into stuff that doesn't.
DMs are creating new plots left, right and centre whilst older plots begin to stale and lie forgotten, creating a void of continuity. I think the server itself can deal with a system created by DMs for DMs in terms of creating new "exciting things" for the server. For one, the DM team needs to work as a cohesive unit and allow eachother the chance to work with eachothers creations so that, just in case the original DM is AWOL another one can easily take their place and continue the plotline for the players involved. I personally am a favour of one major plotline every few months, see that done with, and then move on - the time in-between can be filled with little side quests with little relevance to the big plotline, the support of player initiated plotlines, and perhaps some tasteful personal quests for certain characters who've made the server alittle more lively with what they do.
Just archive the entire forums and start fresh when V5 comes along, and in the meantime, work out somesort of internal policy among yourselfs. DMs are the keys to a consistant server, if your forums are a mess, develop some way of organizing it. A little structure will do wonders. The amount of change afforded to players, however, is something the entire server needs to discuss, because its a damn hard job for any DM to keep up with a thousand player initiated plots at once. It's as if we're trying to be too many things at once to please a bi-polar playerbase.
-
I think that V5 needs to take the best parts of V3 (stable equilibrium with carefully balanced opposing powers) and V4 (excellent opportunity for players to influence things) and imrprove and meld them together.
The trick is to not let the pendulum swing so far that the whole machine falls out of whack. There has to be some orchestrated push-pull and the player base should just accept that momentum that they are feeling will eventually stall and things will swing back towards "normal" and then past to another direction, not necessarily an opposite one.
How far to let it swing and how far it goes another way is the science involved. How long to let it go is probably the art. If done well, then both long and short term players on any side (there are many) can win and lose without being totally destroyed if they want long term conflict, or if they are into short, they can burn out brightly instead of fading away for a season.
A way to drive might be having 3-5 megaplots that obviously involve competing groups on different parts of the spectrum and the DMs can place inputs into the system to help guide the direction that it goes. These should be long term plots with distinct, planned phases that while somewhat scripted, have enough wiggle room that players dont' feel like they are on rails.
I think if the DMs and players can figure those little details out, you've got a perfect combination.