DM RP XP

[Brokenbone]

As discussed in IRC, nothing stops DMs from lavishing their time on people they feel are positive contributors to the project.

Nothing forces DMs to DM anyone either. HDM rolls d6 in chat, comes up a 4, tell his DM #4 alphabetically to go show someone a good time? C'mon.

People may already discuss that in the background, possibly outside the forums so as not to be snooped (OMG admins can read our PMs too, haha), folks who they think are getting the short end of the stick, whether contributors or not, with plans to try and pick up stories.

[Zelknolf]

The claim wasn't that people who don't want to play together should be forced to; the claim was that opportunities to play would probably be a more powerful incentive than XP dumps. Sure, it probably won't happen in any meaningful way, because there are a rare few people who actually care (and those rare few people are, unsurprisingly, terribly overburdened and prone to burnout). That doesn't much change what the ideal would be, though.

[Swift]

If you want more people contributing, particularly in the form of active DMing, it has to be attractive to people. I do not think being a DM in ALFA is all that attractive to many people.

[t-ice]

There is some issue with "reward contributors with DM time", of course. The obvious is becoming a closed circle-jerk where you need to be a heavy contributor to have any fun in this game. We'd be closing our doors to new blood that way. Another is that the best combination for the best game is a DM dedicated to DMing and player(s) dedicated to playing. It's easy to "fall to" DMing the most active players who are pretty much always there, whose PCs are already entangled to you stories. Because that's how DMage comes most naturally. Even if on the other side of the server a rarely playing heavy-builder person is getting neglected.

Or put in other words, this thread about rewarding DMs turned into "The DMs are responsible for rewarding project contributors (including other DMs) with DM time". Good, motivational and non-burdening DMage that does not make.

--

I do not think being a DM in ALFA is all that attractive to many people.

Ok. So why and how do you think it could be improved?

[Veilan]

I could only wager that the ability to F5 whiners might improve Swift's enjoyment...

Fact is we award RPXP to players for just being logged on and the time our voulunteers spend NOT logged on contributing to the project results in XP "lost" for their toons.

Yeah, opportunity cost is the only argument I discovered that I could not counter or chalk down to opinion, and which ultimately converted me from my initial vehement opposition to a stance of "if we really want this, I'm not opposed to it".

Still, I do see and know the ethical problems.

Ah well, maybe some great new idea will spring from this?

Cheers,

[Darkmystic]

Personally, I want nothing from DMing. I do it cause I think its fun. What I want though is that when I play, I want rp and my own dm adventures. So players, take us low lvl dm characters along with you. We want to game to!

[Zelknolf]

Or put in other words, this thread about rewarding DMs turned into "The DMs are responsible for rewarding project contributors (including other DMs) with DM time". Good, motivational and non-burdening DMage that does not make.

The trick though is that we end up at odds with every talk about static content or world-managing core systems. Every time I hop up and say "Hay, there's this thing over here that we're doing manually, and that's pretty silly guys. The decision making process behind it is easily defined and checked. I can make computers do that," the answer is very frequently "No, ALFA is hand-managed by its DMs for everything."

This leaves a pretty difficult position to be in. The DMs here reliably argue that ALFA exists only by the grace of DMs, but if that's so and we're going to design our world and content with the assumption of DMs making things good, then we have to rely on DMs to make things good. If we can't actually make that deal, we're in a very bad way right now.

[kid]

if we would get RP-XP for other things my toon would have been level 15 (and it would have felt silly) And zelk would have been level 80. probably wont work.

I think the rational ones among us try to show some gratitude to those who do hard work, but thats not allways possible.

[t-ice]

The trick though is that we end up at odds with every talk about static content or world-managing core systems. Every time I hop up and say "Hay, there's this thing over here that we're doing manually, and that's pretty silly guys. The decision making process behind it is easily defined and checked. I can make computers do that," the answer is very frequently "No, ALFA is hand-managed by its DMs for everything."

This is certainly an important point, Zelk, and I am aware I've probably been one of the louder voices in opposition to what I, probably sometime undeservedly, fear as "mmorpg -like full automation". Luckily you seem to have a strong head on your shoulders and aren't easily demoralized by ol' opinionated me. Still I should say that systems created are formidable and impressive, and appreciated even by yours truly
But I still want more,

I am not in opposition to more powerful engines. What I typically oppose is reading the rulebook and saying "this is the rules how X is, I code it in, and that's that". When the most central concept of the game is that all the rules are always subject to circumstance laid down by the story, ie the DM. In fact those circumstances often are the story. So "the decision making process behind it is easily defined and checked" is typically precisely so only for rules lawyers. Nobody wants to DM a rules lawyer.

What I've been trying to say is that it doesn't have to be this way. Be it the crafting system or the wealth tables (to take two recent examples) it would be better for DMs if the systems are designed with levers and switches that the DMs can use to keep in control while the math and application is handled by the system. Thereby empowering stories with a stronger engine, as opposed to sidelining DMage by reading the rulebook like the devil reads the bible. Of course those controls can have default values so-and-so, but when DMs can use them to steer, we have more power to storytell with. So please give us a car to navigate the countryside with, not a trainride for PCs from A to B.

It's understandable that someone building a system would want it to be instantly available, with full options, to all players across ALFA. And the downside of what I'm after is that with DMs controlling the floodgates, not quite so many players can immediately use the system. But by empowering DMs with tools to give options to PCs, as opposed to giving all the tools to all PCs directly, I claim a much better game can be had. DMs can better maintain stories that shape the world for the PCs, and feel actually needed, not just tasty treats now and then. And players will appreciate their options as achievements and story elements, not as given.

This leaves a pretty difficult position to be in. The DMs here reliably argue that ALFA exists only by the grace of DMs, but if that's so and we're going to design our world and content with the assumption of DMs making things good, then we have to rely on DMs to make things good. If we can't actually make that deal, we're in a very bad way right now.

The obvious is that without the formidable technical and infrastructure framework of ALFA is every bit as important. DMs would be rather toothless without the world and inhabitants to play with, wouldn't they.

The above is about DM time, and shortage there of, generally. What's been floated here is the idea of "We need preferable DMage for people who script/build/DM". To some degree this of course already happens, and shouldn't be persecuted, it's just human nature. But I really don't think it's something we should encourage further. Because it makes us inbreeding.

What at least I try to focus my DMing on is people with initiative and active take regarding their story. Just because it's so much more enjoyable to create a story together with players, than to create a story for players. The door's open to all, but it's hardly a big surprise that DMs and other longstanding contributors have more experience in "communal" story-telling, taking charge of a story (this time their PCs story), and usually a better grasp of the lore and the IC-reasonable possibilities in Faerun. But that doesn't come simply by building X areas or system, or DMing N hours, and it shouldn't be institutionalized so.

[Zelknolf]

I do think there are two important points in those words above-- the first, obviously, is that there are indeed a handful of passages in the DMG that remind us of "Rule 0," but there are twice as many that remind and repeat the value of consistency, and warn that changing the rules within a campaign will only produce a sense of favoritism and injustice in the campaign-- both being decidedly unfun. This is a problem that's all the more exaggerated in a world with multiple DMs, who may or may not communicate what they're doing particularly well, and might not agree with one another when they do. In theory, this is what the rules are for. They exist to keep us consistent, and they exist in modular packages to (in theory) keep us from being terribly unfair in their implementation, and the much-scolded "rules lawyer" is someone campaigning for some internal consistency in the game world: and the complaining from outside is rather absurd. We told these people exactly what they could expect out of us and scold them for expecting it.

I do also note that there's a lack of DMs and a lack of DM time, as well. We would have a sufficient DM to player ratio if all DMs DMed, but less than half actually log in, and not every DM login is a DM DMing. It does indeed mean that anything hand-managed and in the control of DMs will fail for some of our players: to extend your metaphor, releasing content that's just helps DMs steer will only help the players who get a ride-- which is where my complaint is in that regard. In the same breath as acknowledging that our DMs can't get to everyone is the claim that we should still rely on the DMs to do it (not fair to anyone; that burdens DMs and screws our players).

I would also say that, contrary to your assertions, contributors don't get special attention. Looking at my team, BHM and NES were downright neglected before they left, and their projects probably won't be finished on account; Basilica and I routinely go weeks without any DM interaction, broken up by tangential runins with other players' plots; Paazin became effectively orphaned when I had to give up my post on MS. I'd say that things are roughly as unpleasant for the other admin as well. Curmudgeon doesn't play for ethical reasons (fair; he's DMA), Veilan's time zone sucks, and Hialmar doesn't even bother trying any more (I don't have a good sense of how Dan's doing; he might've been able to latch onto a group). Head moderator is Paazin again, Standards head was Hollyfant when he was still active (and Veilan before). I suppose the active ARs and Brokenbone are in the Sword's Edge-- and Ronan DMs them regularly. Maybe there's some broader pattern of DMs getting DMed that I'm not looking at, though I'm not sure that the data's there to support that. A good many don't even try to play, so the notion of RPXP for DMing (or any attempts to give them a fair shake for DM time, for that matter) is probably a terrible incentive for those ones anyway.

I suppose I'd still use the word "incestuous" to describe the patterns of DMing here, but not for favor given to contributors. DMs seem to give their attention to their friends, who may or may not give back to the larger community-- and it makes us less like a community and more like a series of parasites latched onto a larger being. I'd argue that asking people to be less incestuous/ parasitic and asking to give contributors a fair bit of DM time are the same thing. Nobody ever suggested stamping a timecard, and I didn't even suggest favorable DM time-- the suggestion was to just give them DM time, and that people would be happier with the world if they got to participate in it more than working.

[t-ice]

I suppose I'd still use the word "incestuous" to describe the patterns of DMing here, but not for favor given to contributors. DMs seem to give their attention to their friends, who may or may not give back to the larger community-- and it makes us less like a community and more like a series of parasites latched onto a larger being.

Well, parasites are a strong metaphor, given that at least I can't figure what would the bigger thing the parasites are draining for their own good? Contributing "just" playing the game is still a positive contribution, after all.

But one thing I would agree on is that for a community as small as we are, it is quite the bit ridiculous that we have a proliferation of "player groups" and their "own" DMs. I wasn't even aware of how common this practice was, and what people not in the "in" are being left out of, until I was given access to all the group forums and noted that that's where most of the posts by players are (though so far I have resisted reading what they tend to be about so as to not meta spoil myself).

I would prefer restricted group forums are strictly for IC. All meta matters, such as game scheduling, oughta be done in the open so as to by deafult extend an invitation the community at large. (Yes, you can still say no to someone, but at least people can openly see what are the "groups" and when do they play.)

And finally, when we get Amn up and I get a steady DM schedule again, each and every "contributor" is most heartily invited to join. Come with story initiatives, put your creativity to play and don't shy away, and DM attention is guaranteed. But then again, I'm just next to Veilan's timezone (and I daresay the worse side, even further from American times).

[CloudDancing]

I give DM attention to whom I can give attention to when my attention is available. And for the last three months both Castano and I have been plagued with real life stresses. So thankfully Zelk, Kid, Deviant, and T_ice all have carried over this time when he and I have been simply slammed with RL issues.

Alfa is getting older (or at least the span of ages is widening) than it was and the people here have families and more complicated jobs and responsibilities. DM time and playtime is more concentrated and in spurts. Whenever I see someone playing longer than a few hours each day I know something is going in RL, like a job loss, or a disability even. People with full time jobs or full time families just can't compete as Dms.

What i'd like to see is some way to reward those efforts. And the system I last heard of (via Velian) was entirely viable and I wanted it back 9 months ago when it was put on the table. Git 'er done! Please!

(But I would also like to see people removed from positions that have been untouched for three months and people PLEASE not accept or step down officially from position they just can't do anymore. You don't just wander off from a volunteer position and come back a year later expecting your job back (or get a whole server). It is really annoying!)

[oldgrayrogue]

*points to topic*

[Swift]

But one thing I would agree on is that for a community as small as we are, it is quite the bit ridiculous that we have a proliferation of "player groups" and their "own" DMs. I wasn't even aware of how common this practice was, and what people not in the "in" are being left out of, until I was given access to all the group forums and noted that that's where most of the posts by players are (though so far I have resisted reading what they tend to be about so as to not meta spoil myself).

Is it really? As Cloud said, alot of us do not have the free time we once had, so player groups that meet at specific times with a specific DM that involve a set player list that can all make the same time seems like the most reasonable way for many ALFAns to continue to enjoy the community.

Campaign style playing groups have been around in ALFA for 10 years.

[t-ice]

Campaign style playing groups have been around in ALFA for 10 years.

Yes, and I'm not against that. Consistent set of PCs improves any DMd game hugely. I'm just very leery of the fact that these campaigns are apparently arranged "under the counter" in closed group forums so that most of the community, and especially new(er) members, aren't aware of when and where they are.

If a campaign is already "at capacity" with PCs, then fair enough, say it. But most of the times I would presume other players on at the same time could brush off as quest stars or even ambience. And a player thinking "hmm, where and with what PC I could find some game in these times I can play" should have as much info as possible on what and where game happens.

But yeah, general game organizarion is beside the topic here, isn't it.