ALFA Proposal: Consolidate

For discussion and formation of server proposals and teams.
User avatar
boombrakh
Githyanki
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: ALFA Proposal: Consolidate

Post by boombrakh »

First of all, I am not passionate about this enough to try to convince each and every one of you. I would however, after reading your replies, like to reply to a few of your concerns since I don’t really share the view/concern. And it is always interesting to see what would be learned from eachother debating the pros and cons of each topic.
Brokenbone wrote:Proposals forum is for new server proposals :)
Technically, I was proposing new servers. In a way. But sure, if this is in the wrong part of the forum, feel free to have it towed to the proper part of the forum.
Ithildur wrote:WHL and BG are already consolidated, effectively; travel between the 2 servers should not be an issue at all due to their close distance geography wise.
The reason I used BG and WHL as examples, was because they were close to each other geographically and that WHL isn’t really a big server, which could make it easier.

Ithildur wrote:If the concern is 'I'm on WHL but I see folks on BG I'd like to RP with' that's not a problem, simply go there just as you would bring your toon from Beregost to BG or vice versa; no need to put both into one mod.
The problem with what you are saying isn’t accessability, it’s psychological. The server barrier isn’t technically a problem in this instance, but it serves as a psychological barrier that separates two players. We ought to encourage our players to interact and randomly meet.

Ithildur wrote:I may be supportive of the idea of consolidating BG/WHL if 1. it's even practical/feasible from a NWN2 builder (additional workload and module size limit) perspective and 2. it'll actually mean DM/builder etc presence effectively increases. i.e. instead of 1 active DM on one server and 3 active DMs on the other, you get 4 active DMs on a consolidated BG/WHL server. I'd be more enthused about the idea if instead of 1+3=4 we were looking at something like 3+4=7, but ce la vie.
1) Of course. If it wouldn’t work, it wouldn’t work. But you are relying too much on problems instead of finding solutions to those problems. Everyone and their uncle understand that you can’t have a too big server. The game simply doesn’t support it. So if that is true, how do you solve that problem?

2) Well, this is all very rules-dependant. We have rules in place that creates a problem here with no intention of removing them. Like you so eloquently put it; ”C’est la vie”.

Lucifer wrote:It is a very rare individual whom can totally ignore what they know. And even more rare to enjoy ignoring what you know when it works against you/your char. Even if someone works hard at it, unconscious metagaming will almost certainly occur. I've seen it on other servers and even had DM's lecturing me on how "C'mon you know I would never do that" having just finished a session in which they did it unintentionally and without realizing it. It does not need to be intentional to happen or need to be ill meant or harmful to be noticed.
This here is what keep surprising me over and over again when I hear it. I’ve come to the conclusion that it has to be both a cultural thing and a matter of maturity. There are only one concern here and that is potential META.

First of all, META isn’t the devil. META isn’t out to get you, or to drug you and steal your kidney. Some META is good, some isn’t. I have no problem with anyone knowing everything about my character. Hell, there are so many people having access to different DM forums these days that keeping a secret about your character is nigh impossible anyways.

I believe that the fear of META is two-fold. First is that some people play to win. It is not evil, it’s not bad, it’s just how it is. It is a mentality you’re brought up with - success over all! When you are one of these “winners”, you tend to view the world consisting of two types of people; those that win and those that don’t. This is usually true when it comes to Americans (yes, I am generalizing and of course it doesn’t mean that YOU are like that).
The second is that ALFA has fostered this way of thinking it’s entire existence. So even if you don’t belong to a “winning” culture, you are gradually integrated into one when you join and soon change from trusting to suspicious/competitive.

Now, the other side of the META-coin, you’ll find players who don’t care about winning. Great example of this are Edgar and puny. While both players enjoy a really good adventure, they are equally find with losing, or failing. Because it’s not the shiny trinket at the end of the obstacle course that is the main price, but the race itself. And when you have that mentality, it doesn’t matter if people know things about your character. As a matter of fact, it actually helps. The reason for this is that you get a more engaging and deep roleplaying experience because META is used as a means to open doors instead of closing them. And this is what I mean when I say it is a cultural difference.

You also bring up that META might not be used with ill intent, but sometimes it tends to happen when people know things that their characters shouldn’t. But this isn’t really a big problem and at the same time, one that is very frequent. For example: Characters die, only to bring a new PC into the old fold. The player does his or her best to try to separate all the intimate little details their character knows about your character. Sometimes things slip. And you know what? It doesn’t really matter. A simple /tell to the player immediately rectifies this with a “((whoops, I didn’t say that))” from said player – every time (at least from my experience).

Ithildur wrote:As far as DMs playing where they DM... *sigh* the day may come when we're reduced to that, but I for one would like to hold out hope that's not necessary yet. I see this policy as a luxury that I'm very grateful for, for the benefit of both DMs and players (and admin as well who don't have to deal with as much crap), one which we hopefully can afford as long as we have more than one server and a decent pool of folks to RP with.
I am really interested in exploring these two different stances (yours and mine) further because it boggles me how two people I think are quite intelligent and insightful have such conflicting views. You see it as something bad, something evil that you never hope will happen, while I see it as something beneficial.

Ithildur wrote:The issue isn't so much about 'zomg we don't trust people to not cheat' as much as it is about not being naive about realities of human nature, as well as fun for the DM himself. Bringing Aglaril to MS for me was something I wasn't as enthused about because having DMed there there are some aspects of the mystery that aren't there for me on that server, and even if I'm not actively out to cheat, I have to make some effort to suppress my knowledge/brain damaged memory banks in order for me to both 1. enjoy the surprises of the server as much as I can and 2. avoid metagaming, even unintentionally/subconsciously. It should be for my own enjoyment that I DON'T WANT TO KNOW SPOILERS as much as possible as well as avoiding potential metagaming issues.
It is exactly that. The only argument that is used to justify the rule of “Don’t DM where you play” is potential cheating. Blaming it on “human nature” is like saying that people aren’t in control of their own actions and if given the possibility to cheat, they will.

I don’t understand your comment about it being about allowing the DM to have fun as well and you will have to correct me if I get your stance wrong here. As a PnP DM, I tend to want to know as much as possible about my players characters. It allows me to create more intimate experiences for each one of them, tailoring the experience each one is looking for.

kid wrote:No DMing playing on the same server. It's not even a matter of trust. People treat you differently when you DM, which is fine, but they should be playing with you on the same server as you DM. It's just too problematic even if we were all paladins in RL (which we are most certainly not).
This here is a valid point because it should never be a matter of trust. If we didn’t trust our DMs, we shouldn’t be allowing them to be DMs. As to how you are treated as a DM, I couldn’t very well say. But unless it is that you are being treated worse than when you were a player, isn’t that a step in the right direction when it comes to getting along with your fellow players?

kid wrote:However I could get behind removing all travel limitations. I once thought that a 24h wait is too short and we should go for a longer wait. But since then we seem to have lost many active players. With our dwindling numbers removing said wait on server travel all together isn't a bad idea imm.
I was one of those who did. And something that people around here seem to keep forgetting is that nothing is set in stone. Hell, we’ve even made changes to that which must not be touched - The Holy Charter. And anything that facilitates player interaction should always triumph rules. Especially rules that are in place only to enforce time as a factor in travel.
Brokenbone wrote:I'd suggest players are free to agree to congregate wherever. If some group, even DMless, wanted to say "let's rock the Moonshaes all October long in Euro evenings" and sort of signal to each other that is where they all agree to make kind of preferred for the month... go nuts.
It is a nice thought but one that doesn’t really happen. The sense of community isn’t really that strong for anyone to be able to muster that kind of thing. That said, I would love to be proven wrong. Hell, I’ll be first and say that I’ll stay on MS all October for that reason alone.
pragmatic (adj.)
The opposite of idealistic is pragmatic, a word that describes a philosophy of "doing what works best."
From Greek pragma "deed," the word has historically described philosophers and politicians who were
concerned more with real-world application of ideas than with abstract notions. A pragmatic person
is sensible, grounded, and practical.
Locked