A Land Far Away

Right. Well, it seems worth discussing ideas at the least. Outside of 1-2 times a week where no players show up, I usually am DMing a group or being DM'd myself.

I wouldn't advocate instituting a specific server organization as policy. That seems very likely to end poorly for us all (because we'd then have to discuss and change policy to adjust to something like shifting populations, a burnt out team, a server turning/ceasing to be open, a server going down, and god knows what else -- nevermind the problem of actually trying to enforce that, which I assume would require movie-style bad guy cops in riot helmets).

But one server producing a bunch of content to try to lure a bunch of players into the same space seems like a different sort of plan-- and if another server sees this and produces a bunch of content to keep up, then the fun has been doubled. If not, we still get extra content. Even if players don't redistribute in response, we still get extra content.

Frankly I don't think nwn2 ALFA ever had the numbers to support more than one or two servers at any point. Adding more always seemed like a terrible idea to me.

Remove all travel maps. Remove most of the long, dead useless travel areas between towns with only one or two maps (preferably with spawns) between populated areas to simulate long distance travel. Consolidate the best parts of BG, TSM and WHL into one large "Sword Coast" server. Keep MS as the lone travel server. Keep all "dungeon" areas and FILL them with hostile spawn encounters. Have a donation drive for any required hardware/software to make project happen. I'd be willing to donate time/money.

Vast open wilderness areas are pretty to look at but ridiculously boring to most players if they are empty of life or danger. Lengthy road travel areas are nice to look at but ridiculously boring to play on, especially without any encounters, and they serve to spread the players out away from each other over vast distances. Travel maps are simply horrible. Ditch them all. They served a purpose at one time but are OOC and tremendously boring and immersion breaking.

The idea of the OP is a good one. Consolidate the player base to a hub. My idea is to consolidate the content and scope further to keep players in closer proximity to each other, but with the option of exciting adventure travel in groups.

ANd what about those of us who have IC ties to MS and don't want to leave?

Adanu wrote:ANd what about those of us who have IC ties to MS and don't want to leave?

Then don't Adanu. What I am saying is essentially have 2 servers: "The Sword Coast" comprised of a combo of parts of BG, TSM and WHL, and MS as a second server. Two servers, with a 2 PC rule and with no DM where you play rule. Only thing that changes is some of the content.

Lets face it, vast portions of all of our servers essentially go unused except by DMs. All of the existing areas could still be available as DM areas for campaigns etc, ---maybe even on another linked server -- but PW play could be centralized on two paired down versions as set forth above. Essential to this working is increased static content on both. This is what draws people on to play when no DMs are around.

Personally, I'd be fine with the "spoke and wheel" approach of one main server and then all of the rest of our content available for DMs to use for special events. Maybe the other server areas could even be set up as "high level only" or something and you could "unlock" static quests to go travel and play there, with or without a DM. So an NPC gives you a quest for a group of adventurers to travel North to the Frost Hills and put down an incursion of Obould's Orcs, or kill some upstart commander. Only way you can travel there is with a quest token. DMs could even give these out if we don't have the script writers to do it. Then its just place spawns let players go play there. Again make it chock full of spawns and static content so there is always something to do. I think people would love that, and it would make travel special and IC.

The absolute best way to do this would be a wipe -- as controversial as I know that is -- announced well in advance as the target date for live of the essentially new project. This would give everyone time to wrap up their stories -- DMs and players alike. Established PCs could even be given the option of having their characters NPCd and becoming a permanent part of the gameworld. This option would allow us to make use of all of our content, essentially start fresh and centralize the player base and DMs.

Frankly I would also be totally fine with play where you DM. I think its ridiculous how paranoid people are about this. The fact is that anyone who has ever been a DM or had an Admin position -- which is most of us lets be real -- has had access to tons of meta information about each others PCs at one point or another. Not to mention the fact that most established PCs are well known with well known histories and stories. Is the 30 day rule really that much different than play where you DM? This rule is simply a relic of ALFA's past where there were many more players and many more opportunities for abuse. That simply does not exist any more. We are now a relatively small community of gamers, within a slightly larger gaming community, that get together to have fun playing a game together we all love. We have to get over the paranoid fears of meta abuse and people being out to get one another. Honestly I have not seen that in ALFA for years, at least not in the circles I play in. The only pillar ALFA needs to keep is permadeath -- everything else is unnecessary in my view. Anyway, this is probably the best option, but I doubt most ALFAns will go for it at all.

Unfortunately, we lack the volunteers to merge or create significant new server material with existing or hypothetical new servers. Also, with my informal inquiries, people are not yet ready for consolidation of servers at this point. I think the most easily achieved idea that you have mentioned is that we should have tons of dungeons packed full of content. I am already pushing forward content of this type as the big update for BG for 2014. It remains to be seen whether it can be accomplished or not, but damn it we are going to try.

oldgrayrogue wrote:Frankly I would also be totally fine with play where you DM. I think its ridiculous how paranoid people are about this. The fact is that anyone who has ever been a DM or had an Admin position -- which is most of us lets be real -- has had access to tons of meta information about each others PCs at one point or another. Not to mention the fact that most established PCs are well known with well known histories and stories. Is the 30 day rule really that much different than play where you DM? This rule is simply a relic of ALFA's past where there were many more players and many more opportunities for abuse. That simply does not exist any more. We are now a relatively small community of gamers, within a slightly larger gaming community, that get together to have fun playing a game together we all love. We have to get over the paranoid fears of meta abuse and people being out to get one another. Honestly I have not seen that in ALFA for years, at least not in the circles I play in. The only pillar ALFA needs to keep is permadeath -- everything else is unnecessary in my view. Anyway, this is probably the best option, but I doubt most ALFAns will go for it at all.

I agree with you pretty much 100% on this... I may run for a future ALFA admin position with this as my platform (play where you DM, with HDM approval). Probably the only way to get a real gauge on what our voting membership feels. The paranoia amongst some in ALFA is just over the top, sadly.

Playing where you DM sucks, but sometimes the alternatives suck more.

oldgrayrogue wrote: Frankly I would also be totally fine with play where you DM.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

mr duncan wrote:

oldgrayrogue wrote: Frankly I would also be totally fine with play where you DM.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Well look, we all know the reasons for the no playing where you DM rule. However, I have always thought that if a DM is not capable of separating OOC from IC or from ignoring meta info in their game then they probably should not be DMing. I trust our DMs, which is why I think especially with our present player density the rule is no longer necessary. But I understand that other players might disagree.

Eh... the argument put forth seems to skip one of the major arguments against DMs on the same server where they play-- they can respawn farmed-out areas for themselves pretty discretely, and with only marginally-more visibility set up static encounters and populate merchants for themselves. It would also pretty rapidly remove any uncertainty associated with exploration, on account of being able to (completely-invisibly) disable too-dangerous spawns while running off to buy your fancy underdark wine or whathaveyou. Being a DM would be a pretty significant advantage in terms of access to content as a player. And we certainly have a couple DMs who would do that, on account of the 'harsh penalties never happen' thing.

And our only citation of an immersive RP world allowing as much is Exodus, which-- as it exists only as a drain on our hosting resources today-- seems to represent the precise fate we're trying to avoid.

Would not want to play with someone who's also a DM on the same server.

Even if it's, lets say, OGR.
It's not even a matter of trust (as i'd completely trust him not to cheat, etc), but i'd still feel uneasy.
Really though, rotation can work within a player group (Theoretically still the same potential of cheating, but still some separation that gives a sense of a DnD game).

I think we will most likely see conflicts of interest e.g. me DMing my PC's IC buddies then Biddle pops up to ask to borrow some phat item.

Totally legit right? My buddies earned that loot and once they have it it's totally IC for my PC to ask to borrow it.

Zelknolf wrote:Eh... the argument put forth seems to skip one of the major arguments against DMs on the same server where they play-- they can respawn farmed-out areas for themselves pretty discretely, and with only marginally-more visibility set up static encounters and populate merchants for themselves. It would also pretty rapidly remove any uncertainty associated with exploration, on account of being able to (completely-invisibly) disable too-dangerous spawns while running off to buy your fancy underdark wine or whathaveyou. Being a DM would be a pretty significant advantage in terms of access to content as a player. And we certainly have a couple DMs who would do that, on account of the 'harsh penalties never happen' thing.

And our only citation of an immersive RP world allowing as much is Exodus, which-- as it exists only as a drain on our hosting resources today-- seems to represent the precise fate we're trying to avoid.

Any DM who would do any of this should be banned from all of ALFA immediately. It is cheating to the Nth degree. Pretty serious accusation to say there are DMs who would do this.

Exodus died because of internal staff issues, not due to the DM rules.