Increasing Player Activity / Density

[Zelknolf]

Whether we love or hate FR is really a sidenote to the topic unless some people truly hate it to the point where they're willing to put their money where their mouths are and build non FR servers

Ohhoho! Ye of little faith!

AND convince us that ALFA adopts those instead of existing servers.

... oh... yeah, I suck at that.

[Ithildur]

I'm willing to acknowledge the time may come when things run their course and it's time to put ALFA out to pasture, but I hope it's not a(nother) premature schism/split, especially if the issue is the setting of all things.

As much as I dislike many things about FR there are reasons why I do like some things; I know I prefer it to the vast majority of custom worlds I've seen people attempt to run in both NWN and PnP. That's not a knock on Mundasia (which I don't know enough about) or whatever/whereever else; Starbucks isn't the best coffee but there are still reasons why they do better than a lot of independent cafes that pop up and why I still often go there.

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that 'It's FR!' is the reason why player activity drops.

[Dorn]

My two bobs worth:

First lets break down the two discussion points as they are different.

Player activity
I take this as a measure of opportunity for players to interact.

Much of what Zelk has said is right for the purposes of increasing player activity.

We have had good success recently in just organising player driven quests which has greatly assisted my enjoyment and others apparently.

I actually think the 2PC rule DID work in some instances here as we have players alts joining us for RP where their main chars would be on an otherwise empty other server, but then another time during the week they have a session on that server. So maybe an incremental improvement.

However we need to realise organised events are normally once a week and people often want to play more often than that, to just log in when the opportunity in our busy lives allows and find people there to RP with...and so we move onto density.

Player density
I take this as an equation of density = number of players vs geography they are spread across.

For the last while (year) I often see one player on the server I'm on (me) and maybe a few others spread across 3 other servers. Often we are alone and unable to meet up as moving servers for an hour or two's RP and then having to move back across servers to meet up with others you have a once a week session on isn't worthwhile, and perhaps doesn't sit with us well (we can suspend belief to run across a server for RP, but not accross multiple servers). I've also seen a few times recently one (or even two!) DMs on other servers with maybe one PC where there are 2 or three on the server I'm on.

I just wanna log in and see 4 people on my server, rather than 4 people on 3 servers! It's not even about more DMs and DMed sessions, it's just about being able to RP adventure/taverns/training/politics with an other PC rather than chat over inter-server tells.

((PS - greater density will likely result in more opportunities for organisation as instead of 3 people being on a server and therefore able to join a session - not so viable given RL means people miss them, there may 5 - more viable))

So what levers do we have to effect the above equation.

Lever 1 - increase number of players
PR and advertisement. Obvious. I agree. BUt we must also all be realistic that even if this is done incredibly well, we are talking about a small number of new players just because we're playing an (awesome) niche in a 7(?) year old game. Plus having low density will impact on the ability to retain these new players with all the best intentions, as they don't want to log into somewhere where there aren't other people to play with. Yes organisation will help, but again, people want to log in opportunistically as well as once a week.

Lever 2a - increase ability for quick movement within servers
Lets increase opportunity for 'density-at-a-point' so I don't (have to - if you want to go nuts) spend 30mins of my 2 hour session running across a server to meet others before playing. Again, organisation is fine, but some people play once a week and some play many times and yo just cant always be logging in together at the same place. I like the idea above about portals and boats and so on.
TSM for example would be Rivermoot (river) - Silverymoon (river) - Fourthpeak (join patrol) - Feldbarr (join patrol) are the four major jump points for adventure. BG may be BG, Beregost, FAI and ? Short of giving players OOC teleport devices it's perhaps the best option.

Solution 2b - reduce the number of servers
I think there has been some avoiding of this in favour of incremental changes. But I just cant see us getting away from it as a major thing that will support the success of a range of other things such as those zelk has proposed (i acknowledge that you, zelk, personally do not support this). We approved the development of 4 servers for more players than we have now.

Potentially:
Two servers = all players (can) have a PC on all servers under 2 PC rule
Two servers = DMs can have a PC (i think we need to allow a few 'good standing' folk to DM where they play...but maybe a bridge too far right now)
Two servers = marginally less tech support and other admin support
Two servers = the opportunity to add some (script cleared) areas/content of decommissioned servers into the two remaining ones?
Two servers = perhaps the loss of several contributors from ALFA and some angry people who will stay but be seriously irritated. Honestly very unfortunate and very understandable. But I feel that the value of sustainability of ALFA as a whole, outweighs the value of the sustainability of two servers. I would hope that given the right discussion that the effected people could see that. Sometimes mercenary decisions are required in situations of risk.

We'll never get to, or should target, a single server MMO numbers or style.

This change in server numbers could be enacted at the next low point of support for those servers, rather than imposed arbitrarily, to soften the blow.

ALFA governance (proposal process, server evaluation process, DMA approval etc) is designed for increasing servers to accommodate increasing players. We didn't give the admin the process to do the reverse an reduce servers (which effects almost all portfolios) with reducing players. So there is no one portfolio who seems responsible for this decision, i suggested a change in an LA plaform but was strongly disabused of the notion that the Lead Admin had any role in this sort of decision.

As such, I may consider using rotku's agreed format for a formal proposal to admin related to this. I think it's is oft discussed but forum discussion generally results in nothing but just that. That process allows for a proposal by a number of ALFAans (rather than individuals posting) and genuine discussion of a proposal with those who support it, and those who are effected by it. It could also, perhaps put the issue to bed a little after there is a firm decision around a firm proposal.

Summery:
1) Activity - So I think zelks suggestions are good for increasing player activity. Foams new forum suite will be amazing in helping achieve that as well.
2) Density - I think we need to do something more fundamental about density however....not just advertising.


Value of Faerun
I love the setting. Plenty of mystery can be found.
Especially as there is nothing to stop our DMs changing:
- A new dwarven kingdoms has been found in the north...but this one is strange, different from everything we knew before
- - A rift has formed and strange beings are spilling out of it along with something that is battling the gods
- Prayers for clerics from three key gods go unanswered and chaos/war/grief between gods of related portfolios ensues - why?
- Almost all orcs in the north are suddenly undead but controlled....
- Turning off the day night cycle and making it permanently night - player go figure out why and how
- Bane dies
- After elections or purchased lordships across western faerun, a new order seems to be being imposed. After a while only the Gem and Beregost have retained complete independence with Baldurs Gate fraught with divisions between new and old dukes.

[Ithildur]

You forgot to add:

Value of Faerun:

-adventurers murder Drizzt (and loot his stuff)

(j/k, I actually enjoyed meeting Drizzt in ALFA, even though my PC may or may not have)

The biggest advantage of FR should be obvious: vast volumes of lore, background, history, hooks to draw from as a common (re)source vs 10 dm's who can't agree on, say, whether wizards from the east who wear red are bad guys or good guys. All the different DMs (even just HDMs) in ALFA trying to agree on the characteristics and relations of say, major cities/nations/regions made up from scratch would be a nightmare ('my city-state like slavery and torture', 'well then my freedom loving kingdom hate your city', 'no you don't because my city also supplies whores to your kingdom's orgies', '...' etc) .

[Dorn]

2. changing a bunch of things out of desperate drive to attempt to get more numbers is often not a good policy in RL or any endeavour

Doing nothing can sometimes be worse:)

I guess it's striking a balance.

Really after all of the text there seems to be 5 proposals?
1) Do PR better - shadowfaxes job
2) Organise better - foam is in the process of providing tools to help that but it's up to players
3) Provide overarching stories/villans - HDMs to pick up, potetnially DMA if ALFA wide
4) Improve intra-server travel - some of the builders have already said they're looking at this, the portal idea is yet another step
5) Reduce servers - controversial but an issue with people boht for and against so vexed

I dont think they are desperate changes at all and the discussions been quite constructive.
Even the FR was a throw-away comment where it was clearly stated as such

[Dorn]

-adventurers murder Drizzt (and loot his stuff)

word...

[Ithildur]

Here's an idea to tie in narrative persistency/character impact and static content: periodically tweak existing static quests and/or make new ones that make reference to/are connected to ingame actions of actual PCs.

Great example would be a Settlestone static tied to the ghost of Sir Rathalan, anything from an existing quest in the area tweaked simply to mention him, or to have him actually be a questgiver for a new quest, etc.

Centipedes are wonderful, but what if the centipedes carried off Teresa's sacred unmentionables and they must be retrieved at all costs?

Maybe as an incentive for people to contribute static quest ideas/content, offer them the chance to let their current/former PC's name be mentioned or otherwise tied in in such fashion? There are things like shops, inns, small sovereign nations etc already clearly tied to/owned by a handful of active and retired PCs (Bellie, Aislinn, Trapper, Sylvaine and of course Tess come to mind - all female PCs btw!); if folks are willing to build shops that bear their name and pay for them etc to get them ingame, perhaps they can do likewise for other static content that people can enjoy and interact with; 'payment' can either be ooc such as actually coding/scripting the static quest or collaborating with coders/scriptors to do so, or IC such as a very difficult or noteworthy/public achievement or something that requires coin, etc. Personal preference would be the nature of the static content fit the nature of the 'payment', i.e. IC expenditure of coin for shops makes sense, someone saving Baldur's Gate from doom gets a big statue in town, the classic CRPG convention of 'donate massive amount of coin in temple X, you gain reputation', i.e. they put something in the temple honoring your devoted PC, contributing an approved static quest earns the right to have their PC's name dropped/tied in at some point in the quest, etc.

[Xanthea]

This one PW had static content matter by putting a number of incredibly powerful bosses in the world, mostly at the end of dangerous dungeons. Powerful to the point where nobody ever killed them even once.

But if a group ever got together and somehow managed to defeat one through a combination of skill, power and luck, on those few occasions, those bosses would be removed from the world and the lore would be updated to account for the complete destruction of that faction.

Obviously it would have a fair number of problems in ALFA, most notably the huge level gap which means that it would basically be out of reach to anyone except the highest level people on the server. Also the fact that you don't get to respawn and lick your wounds if this overpowered monster beats your brains in, which it has to have the strong potential to do if you want it to be meaningful.

I doubt it would be worthwhile in ALFA because the content would be rarely, if ever, used. But I still think it's an interesting thing to point out to show some out of the box thinking on how to make static content a little more meaningful.

Edit for clarity. By "bosses" I mean, like, the Balrog, or Smaug.

[Ithildur]

This one PW had static content matter by putting a number of incredibly powerful bosses in the world, mostly at the end of dangerous dungeons. Powerful to the point where nobody ever killed them even once.

But if a group ever got together and somehow managed to defeat one through a combination of skill, power and luck, on those few occasions, those bosses would be removed from the world and the lore would be updated to account for the complete destruction of that faction.

Obviously it would have a fair number of problems in ALFA, most notably the huge level gap which means that it would basically be out of reach to anyone except the highest level people on the server. Also the fact that you don't get to respawn and lick your wounds if this overpowered monster beats your brains in, which it has to have the strong potential to do if you want it to be meaningful.

I doubt it would be worthwhile in ALFA because the content would be rarely, if ever, used. But I still think it's an interesting thing to point out to show some out of the box thinking on how to make static content a little more meaningful.

I know at least one person who might start plotting to attempt a nigh-suicidal 'useage' of such content at some point. It actually could generate a good deal of planning and RP for a fair length of time if it became clear the challenge was sufficiently dangerous enough, not something to take on with a casual 'pick up' group regardless of level. Sounds better than high lvl PCs standing around chatting about what goblins are doing today in the Cloakwood.

A significant amount of thought needs to go into 'would it make sense for ALFA PC's to take on such a dangerous venture/why?'; much more thought needs to go into this than other PWs, especially with the heavy level of PC attachment we currently see in ALFA. Definitely possible though I think... And it doesn't have to be highbies only; surely there are ways to present sufficiently difficult challenges for lower and mid lvl groups that organically leads to 'we need to RP/plan this out for weeks or MONTHS before thinking about taking it on' while preventing 'oh, just grab a few guys of the next tier of levels or have Tess buff us and it should be a breeze'.

The challenge I'd anticipate is... how do you keep the narrative of static content more or less compelling/interesting for those weeks/months in a persistent context? i.e. static content that elicits a 'this thing is so tough we're going to need to plan for months' can easily become 'well it's been months and it's sitting out there but no dire consequences have happened' which turns into 'what? Oh, I guess I forgot about that thing we are supposed to be concerned about'. I mean, it can happen even with DM plots where the DM might say 'because you waited a year, everyone is now dead'; the nature of static content can make this more liable to happen.

I say all this and at the end wonder, would the amount of thought/work/planning for such static content be that different from a series of DMed sessions like what you ran recently (with less zippy NPC dialog), and if not, is there enough advantage of setting up such one time static boss encounters?

I'm guessing if we have folks who're willing and able to do the work that goes into setting up such boss static encounters but who're not up for DMing 2 - 4 sessions, then the answer is yes. Or maybe instead of fully scripted/coded boss encounters, placed encounters with a LOT of thought/planning/setup and sufficiently terror inspiring boss would do the trick? i.e. what a lot of DMs have already been doing, just ramp it up and make it clear to people they need to do some serious planning/prep/RP beyond 'yay, we actually managed to get 5 interested people on at the same time!'...

I could see certain types of players hating this kind of thing, but unless I'm mistaken ... there does seem to be a pretty clear thirst for more 'adventure' RP opportunities expressed in a lot of these recent posts.

[Zelknolf]

But if a group ever got together and somehow managed to defeat one through a combination of skill, power and luck, on those few occasions, those bosses would be removed from the world and the lore would be updated to account for the complete destruction of that faction.

Why are we talking about this mechanic like it's not already a thing?

http://www.alandfaraway.info/wiki/Infestation_Quests

The fact that it's not a Balrog or Smaug is at the discretion of implementing servers.

i.e. static content that elicits a 'this thing is so tough we're going to need to plan for months' can easily become 'well it's been months and it's sitting out there but no dire consequences have happened' which turns into 'what? Oh, I guess I forgot about that thing we are supposed to be concerned about'.

... and if you do nothing, they take over the roads and sack your smaller villages. Granted, they never bring down your cities, but we still study Hannibal, and he never actually attacked Rome.

[Xanthea]

A combination of servers not really being built for it and a lack of willingness of DMs to support big world plots, I suppose.

Edit for clarity - of course ALFA doesn't lack the ability to put very powerful static monsters in game. Infestations are a cool mechanic, but even without them it is not hard to update some random area with a powerful monster. This is not a mechanical lack and I'm surprised that it's even being brought up as one.

Which is actually kind of funny, now that I think of it. BG, for example, is ridiculously long and prompts complaints about how it prevents people from meeting up very well. But it's not that wide, which kind of removes depth from what should be the wilderness adventure land. In my opinion, at least.

[FoamBats4All]

A combination of servers not really being built for it and a lack of willingness of DMs to support big world plots, I suppose.

Which is actually kind of funny, now that I think of it. BG, for example, is ridiculously long and prompts complaints about how it prevents people from meeting up very well. But it's not that wide, which kind of removes depth from what should be the wilderness adventure land. In my opinion, at least.

This is/was indeed a problem. We've shoved a dozen new areas down BG's throat, trying to fatten it up.

[Heero]

If only you had willing builders to build areas for adventure.

[Lokan]

A context (DM plot or not) where PCs' actions have consequences that matter, leave a mark in the gameworld, stakes that matter are involved, characters (whether PCs or NPCs) and their stories that leave a mark/impact, that's what hooks me... and players/DMs that are enjoyable to interact with ooc, that mesh and work together well.

When I DM, I try to leave some persistence to what happens to the characters and areas in which I involve them. I really enjoy narrative. I really enjoy consequences, and think that the negative things that happen to players are just as fun as positive ones.

Unfortunately, because of the small amount of time I have to devote to DMing, and frequent long periods of interrupted game play, I think that players, understandably, have a hard time picking up on the narrative I have going on in my head. With that said, I do have some open dates coming up very soon, and hope to tell some tales with more clarity, and even try to resolve them without leaving them in the ether for another time.

One thing I would like to open to discussion, that seems to be hinted at here, is we DMs working more closely on larger background narratives. Alot of online games do this where there is a changing big picture narrative. We can have backdrops, such as HEEGz gnoll invasion in which DMs develop smaller episodes, or make personal struggles for PCs due to the effects on the larger world. This may or may not result in a resolution by players in the larger narrative, but it can result in some bigger, more lasting changes....it should be fluid.

One thing about this that I struggle with as a single DM is how much can I change the canon. I really like to look at canon and twist it just enough to make a story, but Im always held back by the idea that the big NPCs, or the iconic ideas of these areas are untouchable. I would like to change that. I think because the changes in canon material in the PnP world, we are left with a stagnant 3.5 setting...that will never grow. I think this is opportunity to take 3.5 canon and start building our own "alfa canon". Lets explore what we can do to the big picture.

I've tried in the past to come up with bigger area effecting plots, but they often met resistance or uncertainty. I would like to start to collaborate and get DMs working as a team to tell smaller stories within the framework of a larger one.

[Xanthea]

I completely agree with Lokan. Both about the desirability of moving off standard 3.5 canon to ALFA canon, and the severe pushback that's met when you try to do that.