A Land Far Away

Just a brief one, that I don't believe has been addressed before.

The new start that NWN2-ALFA-Live provides gives us the potential to consider the best ways forward to build a functional and satisfying game-world. For the first few months (at least), it now seems this world will consist entirely of the Silver Marches module (for Live purposes, at least). This will mean, for a brief time, at least, all DMs will be Global DMs, and no Live DMs will have player rights on 003 (unless exceptions are made, of course). In my view, this gives us something of a mandatory test case for Global DMs (who are not DM-Players). I believe all three candidates have expressed a sentiment that HDMs should be able to decide who DMs on "their" servers, and Rick and Jayde have both emphasized that HDM sponsorship should be fairly automatic approval for DM status.

Do you believe that retaining the per-server, HDM-driven model for DMship will be the best way to build up, as more servers go Live? Certainly, the HDM is in an ideal position to manage the team and server environment to the satisfaction of their players and DMs- but this can also lead to the "fiefdoms" effect- whereby one team looks down on another, thinking "they let player X DM there? We're not going to let that kind of ___ happen on our server." We will likely end up with natural gravitation of "likeminded" DMs to particular servers- which makes for closeknit teams, but also means the feel and style of the game start to change depending on which server you're on, simply due to which DM team you'll be interacting with. You can also get cross-server friction in competition for players, dissatisfactions with awards, etc. Especially if there are few servers and many DM-players, for anyone who travels, it will be hard to avoid rubbing shoulders with the PCs belonging to DMs of their home servers, and vice versa. This has been a point of contention in the past, out of suspicion/presumption/proof of special treatment or indirect twinkage. Those are extreme cases, but it's natural for us to fall into patterns of interacting with the people we know online, so you get players being DMed by the same member they DM elsewhere, which has a way of looking sketchy to a jaded populace.

Do you believe it is possible to maintain one DM team for all of ALFA? Would you be interested in trying this, as we expand, or do you believe it would be more harm than benefit to the community? The arguments for and against Player-DMs and Global DMs have been raised before, certainly- but the "starting small" context provides a new perspective on these matters, and perhaps, an unparalleled opportunity to build up a common core of DMs who are extended the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions and abilities- and try to head off fiefdomism before it has a chance to take root.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this issue.

I think that HDM's feel a little nervous about DM's they do not know well coming in and DM'ing for several reasons.

1. They are worried the new DM doesn't know the canon and will mess up.

2. They are afraid the new DM will interfere with exisiting plots

3. They are afraid the new DM's will criticize the style of DM'ing and try to make changes that may be counter to the HDM and team's way of doing things.


As an HDM, I have encountered all of this. I have had guest DM's mess up the canon. I have had guest DM's wreck plots. I have had guest DM's announce all over the forums about how badly we were DM'ing (according to him).

But these sort of problems were remedied by a well maintained DM forum, DM mentoring, and having a chat with the DM to make sure they understood the server and we got along.

With TSM, as a DM I won't be able to play until Thanghorn gets his up and running

As the current HDM of TSM, I welcome any DM from Nwn1 or 2 as long as they are in good standing, know the canon, and have read the specific DM forums to be up to date on plots and the styles of other DM's, and know the client and standards.

I have hired and fired DM's. I have HDM'ed for 2+ years continuosly, one of the longest running in ALFA. I have always welcomed guest DM's despite the issues and problems I have had and will continue to do so on TSM.

Your question, in effect, is on the viability of Global DMs and our position on them.

I wonder at the implication that we have a one or the other approach to this question.

Perhaps this is a place where applications become more important.

There is nothing inherently wrong with global DMs or having a global DM team.

This is not something for a single mind to decide alone, but to discuss with the entirety of the DM corps.

GDMs bring up several potential issues. If ALL DMs are GDMs, then do we have DM-players anymore? How do the potential DMs feel about that. what id HDM A doesn't like GDM Z and takes a hard stance that GDM Z isn't allowed to DM on their server, thus harming the integrity of the principles behind GDMs.

What are GDMs even doing? Simply running their plots across multiple servers, or are they beholden to a greater responsibility (epic cross-server plots, major canon events, etc)?

I would be very interested in seeing what the HDMs have to say about GDMs and how we might incorporate them into our community.

The question boils down to your thoughts on a fundamental paradigm shift with regard to DMing in ALFA- where server borders become less of an OOC obstruction to plots and continuity of player experience, and the "mine" versus "theirs" being boiled down to one (potentially quarrelsome) "ours".

In it's simplest form, it would also entail making a choice between being a player, versus being a DM. While we could maintain multiple levels of DMs; local DMs versus Global DMs as was proposed once or twice in NWN1, my suggestion is that an ALFA DM could be an ALFA DM. Some will naturally focus on areas where they know the canon well, but none would be restricted by server boundries. HDMs would still have active roles in managing their server areas, and be the authority over happenings under their jurisdiction- but the "team" would be a common one, with the entire DM corps available to fall back on for support/advice as well as oversight. Naturally, such a system would not work well for "contentious" DMs, but I'd imagine this would increase trust among DMs, and betweeen players and DMs. DM applications would be essential in such a system, and would likely be best reviewed by the HDMs at least, if not by the DM body in general.

The loss of the player-DM as a part of the NWN2 ALFA experience would be a definite limitation to such an approach, although DMs would be free to play on the Betas, on NWN1-ALFA servers, or in parallel worlds such as Exodus. Or, they could set aside the wand to play instead, perhaps coming back to DM again once their inspiration was recouped. Details such as these might play a key role in whether a system like this could work for ALFA- but what I'm curious about are each candidate's view on it. Could it be worth the effort? Would it help solve some of the difficulties experienced during NWN1-ALFA, or merely lead to new/increased problems?

I'd also point out that, for an indefinite amount of time (from April 15th until whenever the next server is ready to go live AND a vault solution is ready, tested, and implemented, AND a portalling system is designed, tested, and put into place- could be quite a long time)- we're going to be operating in this sort of a mode by necessity- no player-DMs, every DM is a "Global" DM. The question will be whether we want to try to fall back into the old pattern from there, or try to use the opportunity to do things differently in hopes of making ALFA's world a less divided one this time around.

What is your stance on furthering the seperation of powers amongst the administration to protect ALFA from being manipulated by interest groups?
By interest groups, I refer to the multiple styles of roleplay which often come into conflict between certain groups of players who seek to establish and dominate the administration to further their own agenda.

Do you intend to use your position to provide checks and balances against monopolies and abuse?

Do you intend to continue providing support for furthering the requests for additions and fixes to the flaws of nwn 1?

AL, your statements are thought provoking and I would be interested in hearing what the DM corps as a whole had to say on the subject.

Mr. Hamilton, can you give an example of what you are talking about?

Certainly,

As we all are well aware, favoritism is a natural development. There is no way to stop it, and mitigation requires constant supervision. Alfa, as a vast persistent world will be subject to masses of players with alternative styles of gaming. Eventually these different styles will come into conflict for domination of a server or multiple servers. To establish influence over the chosen theme of the organization, it is likely that ambitious gamers will seek official positions to lobby administration for their groups personal interests of theme. But other less empowered players might begrudge weighted shifts in theme on servers where their own groups are established. Some players who lack the ability to devote as much personal time to their chosen server would have difficulty competing with the alterations desired by the official incumbents, yet deserve moderation of theme just the same.

Will you, as the Dungeon Master Administrator make certain to provide equality of gaming atmosphere despite the influence displayed by players, officials, and even other administrators whom you gain a relationship with?
Will you strictly regulate the dispersal of advantages to coincide with the evolution of standards despite the development of personal story that individuals attain? For example, if a player who reaches 6th level and is chosen by their deity to represent the will of their faith is given a divine gift, mechanically speaking, to assist them in their endeavors, will you make absolutely certain that those gifts do not extend above and beyond the calculated margins for any other character of the same character level? Will you make certain that all mechanics, monetary and otherwise, that apply to characters are dispersed fairly to represent their character level despite the evolution of personal story even if that player is another administrator, your character's DM, and or a person you are intimate with IRL? And will you directly, quickly, and effectively oppose and deal with anyone else who shows a lapse in judgment regarding said issues?

Another example, just for purposes of clarification. Let's say that my character travels to Moonshae on a quest, which happens to be DMed by my brother. During the development of the story, I come to possess an item which increases my scores to a level that borders surpassing allowable character wealth level, but does not breach it. To balance the group, my brother increases the other players wealth standards to the same level. How would you deal with this situation? And how exactly do you plan to monitor such activities if the DM's do not feel they have overstepped their bounds?

In your example specifically, the standards have mechanisms in place that dictate the max award and even include an outside level award in extreme cases.

For example if a level 5 PC is by himself, there is a max award. But if a level 5 PC is with a level 10 PC and the DM means a bit of loot to go to the level 10 but the level 5 ends up getting it, that is what we call, an extreme case.

So there is a very objective method of being able to point out that a DM in this case was wrong.


But you're overall case has a much broader scope.

It strikes into the core of trust in our HDMs to do the right thing and asks what do we do when they aren't doing the right thing. To go further, how do we even KNOW that they are doing the right thing. Especially if it is an HDM?

I agree that past instances have shown that this is a possibility that must be looked out for.

The first is simply standards and training. A way to be able to say to a DM who is doing something they shouldn't, "Hey, you know better."

Followed by a meaningful method of censure and elevation. Strikes, perhaps. Or simply an objective means of removing 'problem DMs'. Or even subjective, subject to the scrutiny of the DM corps.

Course, that's all well and good, but how do we even know that something is amiss? And how to definitively attribute it to an individual or group of individuals?

To start, we're going into this with solid standards, something that wasn't in effect for our legacy servers. Beyond that, it is hard to put together a sense of trust in our DM corps while at the same time trying to scrutinize them for wrong doing.

It is certainly something to discuss among the corps and to decide how best to move forward on. I've some ideas, certainly, but it will ultimately be up to our DM Corps to move forward on that.

A thoughtful question, AL; so I have given it some thought - hence the late reply.

While a truly unified DM corps would, to a certain degree, standardise some elements of the in-game experience, I think we would still see different DM styles coalescing on different servers. After all, having a single DM team, with the full run of a multi-server PW does not mean that every DM is going to regularly run crawl-across-Faerun campaigns, and like-minded DMs would still, perhaps, gravitate together. It is perhaps also of some concern that uniformity of experience should not be an absolute requirement. After all, there are an infinite variety of DMing and playing styles: ALFA should cater to every variety that is capable of peacefully co-existing in our PW format. I think also that the act of identifying and discussing many of the problems identified as the product of NWN1’s server-focussed model means that they will impose less on our NWN2 iteration. For example, there seems to be a much broader consensus now that the role of a HDM is to serve as the steward of a server, not it’s absolute master. The provision of reward standards, DM training, and the proper scrutiny of server builds also means that many of the mechanical sources of inter-team conflict are diminished: there should no longer be extraordinary variations between neighbouring servers. A proactive DMA, engaged with the server teams, and with a good understanding of both running a server and managing the superstructure can be of great benefit here. Also, NWN2 ALFA should, hopefully, see a move away from the DM Campaign-centred style that NWN1 ALFA has gradually become back towards a more authentic Persistent World, simply because of the increased number of players participating.

With all that said, however, there is certainly still a case for considering a move to a purer ‘DM only’ model. For example, the inevitable occurrences of mutual-DMing, with all its incumbent (and at times serious) suspicion, is something that this clearly avoids, and that can only be to ALFA’s gain. However, some outstanding questions remain. At the simplest level: are there enough individuals willing to only DM to make this feasible? Another concern would relate to people engaged in building, and whether they undertook that in the belief that they would be able to DM on the server they are building on and play elsewhere. And then there is a more general concern about whether it is actually beneficial to have a total divide between players and DMs: that is, whether DM’s understanding of the game is thus limited, to the detriment of all. Certainly, on principle, I am not opposed to the idea of a unified DM team; I am, though, uncertain that it is either guaranteed to be as effective a cure or as feasible a project as, on first instance, it may appear to be.