DMs DMing A Land Far Away

[Inaubryn]

It would suck mightily to have no say about who's on your team.

That's my point right there, FI. This is my team you can't be on it. That's the attitude I'm talking about. If a person was seen fit enough to be a DM in ALFA, why shouldn't they be able to DM in all of ALFA? That really makes no sense to me. Well, we accepted you as a DM but the Calimport team thinks you have bad B.O and that may affect your DMing even though the DMA doesn't, so you can't DM on their server.

If there is a "good" reason for some server team not wanting a DM to DM on that server, notice I said "that" server not "their" server, then what in the hell are they doing as a DM in ALFA, period? Are you to tell me that somebody who merits approval as an ALFA DM, somehow isn't good enough to DM on a specific server?

The only reason I could see is, personal bias, or misguided possessiveness. Either a team member has somethin' against a person personally, or the "this is my server and you can't play on it" attitude reigns supreme. In which case, we've been reduced to a buncha pre-schoolers in a sandbox.

And, Jayde, good thought process or no, this will never happen because you will never get rid of the "this is mine" mentality here in ALFA. We cannot and have not imagined ALFA as one giant world.

Look at it this way... let's pretend there was only one server that made up ALFA, but that server held many areas. Waterdeep, The Ten Towns, Westgate, Eyrndlyn, Ordulin, Calaunt, Mistledale, etc. You apply as a player or DM and are accepted. You decide you want to start play in any given area and you can travel to any other area at will. Or, as a DM you decided you wish to DM in any given area but you can DM any given area at will, except an area in which you play, if you play.

In this instance, there are no OOC borders. There is only one server machine with one module. Now, realistically, there'll be multiple servers with multiple modules. These OOC borders have a tendency to cordone off our mentality as well. That's why it's difficult for most of us to envision ALFA as one world. We view it as many smaller worlds. So, it really depends on what we want here. We keep talkin' about this mission statement and the goal, and vision of ALFA. But truthfully, it's not what we have, it's never been what we've had, and most likely, it'll never be what we will have.

[JaydeMoon]

That HDMs can turn you down doesn't contradict the statement that there is no particular policy prohibiting DMs working on multiple servers. HDMs and DMA, as far as I am concerned, will always have a veto power over DM appointments. If teams want to work together, more power to them. If someone convinces every HDM and DMA that they should DM across the whole place, doublepluspower to them. (Fairly obviously, that would mean not playing a PC.)

We agree that there is no 'particular policy prohibiting DMs working on multiple servers'. However, that doesn't really have any bearing on what I am talking about. I am talking about the creation of a Global DM team.

The method as you spell it out there in doublepluspower (I like that term, I'm going to try to use it in my everyday language) is all well and good. But it doesn't lend itself to making things easy to create a group of DMs who can make things happen across a wider spectrum.

So instead you want to force someone to have you on a server who doesn't want you there really? Who would want to be somewhere they aren't really wanted? No thanks.

From what i've seen and experienced, when someone wants to gain DM privileges on another server, the current DMs give input in a private discussion on whether or not they want that person on their team. If the majority of the current team says no, then it's no. Often there are very good reasons for the no.

In any case, the team as a whole functions much better when everyone gets along and there is at least a somewhat unified server philosophy on DMing. Just like some applicants are not a good fit for ALFA, some DMs are not a good fit for particular servers and teams.

It would suck mightily to have no say about who's on your team.

A lot of this is based on current practices in NWN1.

The idea is that there would be standards in place that remove any concerns over whether a person is a good fit for a team based on quantitative or semi-quantitative DMing practices, ie DMs that award too much or too little or always run weird plotlines.

Now, if a DM team just outright didn't like Snuffy, well, that's a real possibility that would be taken into account.

However, we're not just talking about any Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to run amok all over the realms. We're talking about proven DMs who have the motivation and energy to dedicate to making ALFA come to life on a grander scale. So it's not like we're forcing any DM team to take on just anyone.

The DMs this would include would be, ideally, paragons of the community, greatly respected and trusted for their ability to properly award XP and 13wt, not drop dragons in the streets of Waterdeep, coordinate with individual server teams as well as the global teams to ensure continuity was maintained and other plots were not derailed.

Mind you, I am not rallying for this change to take effect for NWN1 servers, but it is something we might keep in mind for NWN2, something we can put in at the beginning so there aren't growing pains about it later.

There are many cons to this issue as well. We have tried global plots and to my memory, they didn't really work as well as they could have. Would we even be able to find folks willing to dedicate that sort of time? Maybe we DO want each HDM to be running his own individual "Boy's Club" on his server, acting with impunity without respect to what's going on elsewhere.

So, at the risk of being poked in the eye, it is something I'm just throwing out, as an idea that I am CERTAIN would help ALFA if we could do it right.

Now, that last if may be completely unworkable, in which case the idea must be shelved. But so far the only real argument against pursuing such an idea is the ego of HDMs.

[Mikayla]

The only way I can see a viable Global DM Team being created is if the selection for DMs onto that Global DM Team was made by the HDMs and made under a concensus model - i.e. all the HDMs would have to say "yes" before a person was made a Global DM.

And though its not expressly spelled out that way, that is what we have now - if you want to DM on every Live ALFA server, you just need to get permission from every HDM. Get that, and you are a "Global DM." Now, if we wanted to streamline the process, we could have a "Global DM" application that would go to all the HDMs, and if approved by all of them, then that person would get Global DMing rights, but really, that would just be a streamlining of what we have now. Global DMing is possible, you just have to get the "ok" from all the individual servers. Is that a bad thing? A good thing? A mediocre thing? I will leave it to the rest of ALFA to cast judgment on this one.

[indio]

No servers -> No issue.

[Removed - Mikayla]

[Lusipher]

[Removed - Mikayla]

[JaydeMoon]

Well, the difference between what's current and what I'm talking about (if the community were to pursue this, which I am guessing it probably won't, pity, but understandable considering many more important things on the table, like Planetouched [I keed, I keed... more like, getting NWN2 servers live!) is that, while currently Snuffy just asks everyone and they each make an individual decision based on how they individually feel, in your streamlined example, everyone could have a chance to talk about an individual and express why they may be a good or bad candidate.

Add to that standards and training so that an applicant can actually show that they have the ability to perform in the position and that could remove some doubts certain HDMs might have.

Second difference is that while an individual could potentially get DM permission on a lot of servers, what I am discussing sets up a TEAM that can properly coordinate large scale events over several servers with support from local teams.

*shrugs*

But yes, maybe my scope is far too grand. Maybe it would add too much additional infrastructure to an already over-bureaucratic community.

Still, concerns about whether HDMs should or should not have an overbearing say in who can and can't be a Global DM speaks to the perception that they own those servers, as opposed to the community 'owning' them, a perception that we may not be able to change for NWN1 servers, but we can certainly nip in the bud for NWN2 servers.

[indio]

[Removed - Mikayla]

[JaydeMoon]

No servers -> No issue.

This is an affront to the builders here, imo. Take your theory and go ponder some more. Maybe make a study out of it.

Hey, Indio, as one of our key builders your opinion on the issue of server ownership is more valuable than most (sorry Danubus, but it's true). You have put so much work into making ALFA and in many cases turned over your servers to other teams. Feeling some sense of 'mine' for something you have put countless hours of work into is understandable, but such attachments perhaps do not mesh harmoniously within the context of a community project.

Do you have the inclination to summarize your stance on server 'ownership' in ALFA? I would personally appreciate your views on the topic.

[Mikayla]

Please confine posts to the topic at hand, and leave out the acrimonious attacks on each other. The removed posts have been relocated to the Moderators thread for the Infra Admin to have a look at.

[Veilan]

Jayde, I think the issue is not so much one of ownership, but more, as FI pointed out, of teamwork and synergy.

Some people don't get along well, some people have different styles, and standards cannot be - nor are meant to be - a big completely and utterly equalizing jackhammer. They are a framework, but DM A and DM B still may produce very different results. Just take a regularly DMed campaign, with a benevolent DM who's the friend of his players and wants to see them thrive. They get basically guaranteed progression, item progression, NPC help and connections, while beating challenges, sure, but they also run no real risk of CvC and are far better set than others. Like another PC, who, say, enjoys his freedom, isn't in any fixed campaign, and if he meets DMs those are the likes who want to make players feel really challenged. So higher risk, lower awards... within the framework.

Now, an HDM, who isn't only a builder and "owner" but also a team manager, motivator and director, may well know what styles may fit with his team, server and regular DMs. A high-challenge DM may not really be too happy about someone coming over to say "hey, I want to give my regulars the happy life here", if he strives to have his server reflect a gritty dangerous setting. The other way around, that DM would not be welcome to a mostly campaign based server where his style of catching the PCs pants down... and not at the regular campaign hour... would create deaths with the regulars there, and thus upset the DMs losing their usual toys.

Portraying this as simply some HDMs being defensive or paranoid and feeling a sense of "ownership" is not seeing the reality of the complexities of team management. Most HDMs are quite willing to allow guest DMs as recent examples show, and their judgment on managing their own team should be trusted.

However, you may be delighted to hear that actually some plans for more server team cooperation and exchange had been drafted about a month ago, but the WT programme still drags on. Until then, maybe DMs who are interested should take matters into their own hands and prod around a bit and organize maybe co-DMed sessions (those are awesome fun, I speak from experience) that then could easily span some borders, gaining some trust and benefitting from each other's expertise.

Now, I agree with you that ALFA should be one house for all of us, but still, you don't just go into your sister's room unannounced now do you...

[Thangorn]

I have no problem with DMs DMing cross-server provided they fulfill the following criteria when on "my" home server, whether the implied ownership is because I build/DM there or whether I am a player there.

* They need to know FR canon for the region, particularly the canon timeline and its effects on the area.
* They need to know "ALFA canon" all the past and future player and DM led actions that define the current status of the area as it is played out in ALFA.
* They need to have a plot that can include "local" players as well as their cross-server group.
* They need to get support from the current DM team so they dont trip over a current plot on the server. IMO thats the only grounds for refusal/amendment of a cross-server plot. Refusal however isnt the way to approach it, my suggested approach would be "Amend your plans on the server in the following ways and you can proceed".
* They need to document everything they have run in the appropriate DM forum, DMs are supposed to do this anyway.

In terms of a "Global DM team" I think we should definitely keep factions consistent across server boundaries where it is canon to do so (eg. Zhentarim, Harpers, etc.). Not every faction needs global consistency however, mainly the lawful ones or ones which deal in effective information flows.

[JaydeMoon]

I'm not talking about individual DMs dragging their 4 person player groups all over the place.

I'm talking about a DM team that coordinates larger scale events over a spread of servers.

The impetus of my thoughts on the matter might have come from an idea that was about individual DMs dragging their 4 person groups all over the place, but that is not what I am talking about.

Again, I am talking about something different.

I am also not trying to portray this as being simply some HDMs being defensive or paranoid. That is pretty much the single issue that has come up as a con (HDMs should be the final arbiters of who can DM on their servers), so it is pretty much the single issue that is being addressed (why is that stance necessary in a community when we have the possibility of including a function with the potential to really add to our overall experience?), but there are a variety of pertinent issues that weigh in favor of or against instituting something like this. Infrastructure and bureaucracy, the difficulty of applying standards over subjects that are more qualitative than quantitative, the fact that this has been tried before and didn't really work, etc.

I am not wholly convinced that the time and effort spent on such an endeavor would be worth it in the end. It is mostly my own musing over how cool it would be to have a workable global concept.

Thangorn's list of needs is applicable, of course. If something like this were to be instituted, we would have to be assured that DMs knew what they were responsible for.

Also, I understand the point about teamwork and synergy. Again the idea proposed would rely on having top notch guys on the team that would work to the satisfaction of all the DMs.

Pipe dream, I guess. Apparently ALFA does not have anyone trustworthy and on their game enough to pull somethingl ike this off.

[indio]

Do you have the inclination to summarize your stance on server 'ownership' in ALFA? I would personally appreciate your views on the topic.

I'm personally all for open servers to DMs, and servers built for common use.

I've already handed over the running of 003 to Rick (who has at least expressed some interest), and will then be going on to work on either:

a) Phase 2 of 003
b) I'd like to work with Ayergo to help get BG on its feet

Whatever mixed messages you get from the 'all talk' crew, the simple reality is I build servers for other DMs to use. Loudwater, Loudwater Mk 2, Baldur's Gate and Waterdeep were *all* appropriated by other DMs either right as IO finished building them or in the months following.

All I want to do for ALFA is build. If all someone wants to do for ALFA is DM or play, let them. Give HDMs complete control and let admin sort out issues as they arise.

But can we please have people involved who actually do something?

Personally I find it pathetic that we've got a few select big mouths who do nothing but make promises, sign up for proposals, join teams, then do nothing about making them happen. And they've been doing that for years. They're all talk, and their voices have come to mean nothing, and should be treated as such.

[Thangorn]

Can anyone give an example of when a currently approved DM has requested DM access on a server and has been refused? When I was EADM of NC, I dont think we kicked out a single request and I was never refused when I wanted to go cross-server or guest DMed to help out.

Whatever the status of DMs will be in ALFA for NWN2 (still a moot point atm since its builders we need), If I stay HDM of Moonsea, I wont refuse any approved DM ("ALFA DMs" or "Global DMs" included) who wants to run plots. As long as you make an effort to fulfill the criteria I listed and make amendments to planned plots as advised by the Moonsea DM team you can go for your life.

If you opt to build stuff for Moonsea, consider yourself having an automatic free pass .

[Rotku]

Can anyone give an example of when a currently approved DM has requested DM access on a server and has been refused?

Can name quite a few cases. I'm not sure if things are the same these days, as it's been a while since I DMed, but back in the 'good old days' I often heard of this happening.