Exodus Integration : A Poll

[Rotku]

Nice detailed post there, Regalis.

Has a census been done to see how many people having overlapping characters? Do we know just how many characters we'll be culling from the two communities if option 3 or 4 go into effect? It seems to me the results could be disastrous if the overlap is greater than anticipated. Uninformed decisions are dangerous.

To give you some rough numbers - these are just an estimate - there are currently around 8-12 people with an Exodus PC and an Amn PC. Of course, some of these people may have no desire to run both PCs. Likewise, if we do go for a 6 month period, we may have some more players roll up a second PC.

[Sandermann]

Likewise, if we do go for a 6 month period, we may have some more players roll up a second PC.

Whoa! we're going to allow new second PCs to be rolled up after the servers join? No way...that is totally unacceptable. I thought this was a compromise to get us back to one PC asap, not carte blanche to flout an ALFA pillar for 6 months.

[Rotku]

I thought this was a compromise to get us back to one PC asap, not carte blanche to flout an ALFA pillar for 6 months.

You mean, like Options 1 and 2?

Nothing is set in stone. If we do end up going with either of the above options then it certainly won't be "a compromise to get us back to one PC asap". This about finding out what sort of compromise people are willing to accept - nothing more, nothing less.

[Veilan]

I thought this was a compromise to get us back to one PC asap, not carte blanche to flout an ALFA pillar for 6 months.

I concur.

Still, I prefer a 6 month limit over a 3 month limit, if only so that we have time to thoroughly complete the review of PCs and the new server planning to join.

Sadly, that also means all options apart from 1 are purely academical for the near future, as there can't be any cross-over for non-reviewed servers. I'm sure Curm will try to streamline this as best as possible, but he's swamped in work.

[I-KP]

If the object here is to not hit the longer standing players of both ALFA and Exodus (who possess developed characters in both worlds) over the head with the 'rules' stick when/should a bridge occur then option #4 is the only kind way of servicing such an integration (for reasons already posted). Bolting on a time limit, a la #3, would be largely unnecessary and perhaps a little on the authoritarian side; natural player churn will level the balance in an organic and unequivocal manner without hanging a sword of Damocles over the head of players whose only act was to help enrich both projects - an act worthy of reward not recrimination IMO. There is something to be said for established characters being necessary in any new setting in order to add a bit of instant sparkle and authenticity which can only add to the experience for all; do not be so quick to crush such a valuable and carefully nurtured resource by incensing the players and GMs behind it.

The wider question of allowing multiple characters in ALFA from here on in is also an interesting point. ALFA (and I’m including the Exodus playership in this aggregation, perhaps presumptuously) has a healthy membership, but not a membership that can breathe enough life into what may turn out to be five online servers. Often I have asked where the new players are going to come from for all of these new servers and as yet I have received no convincing answers (in fact the vast majority of answers seem to be head-in-the-sand, ‘it’ll be alright on the night’ which frankly isn’t realistic). ALFA has a grand heritage, but empires never last and eventually reality has to kick in and rational thought has to come to the fore: new servers will result in player dilution on ALFA as it stands today which can only serve to harm the game as a whole. (Worse, as servers begin to struggle for playership partisan activity will eventually surface and before you know it egos get knocked out of joint and splinter groups start to form, then ALFA ends up with [another] Exodus on its hands; however, such civil unrest is avoidable with a modicum of forethought in these important early stages.) One possible option to help mitigate this spreading out of player talent is to allow multiple concurrent characters in ALFA. I do however consider that this is an issue worthy of separate, detailed and mature discussion, and all should be careful of not treating Exodus as a whipping horse (cf. scapegoat) for an issue that was going to knock on ALFA’s door regardless. That being said, Exodus is a special case in regard to the fact that it comes with a largely external, admittedly small but highly dedicated player base and GM team; something that the soon to be rolling off the production line ALFA servers cannot boast.

The details regarding the management of multiple concurrent characters travelling between servers is potentially convoluted, but not a matter that should be shied away from or obfuscated behind dogmatic status quo stonewalling; well managed change isn’t a painful experience. If player dilution is to be tackled then one has to fashion inter-server travel rules from the perspective of a pan-ALFA world (including Exodus should it be bridged) and not just simply from the standpoint of ‘Exodus’ to/from ‘the rest of ALFA’.

In my humble opinion (as ever subject to ridicule and derision), the moment a bridge is built between Exodus and ALFA the following things need to happen to ensure future stability:-
- Exodus is no longer referred to as a separate or ‘special case’ entity; it is either integrated or it isn’t. Whenever the term ALFA is used Exodus (or ‘Amn’ as the server may become known) is viewed as being part of that family of servers.
- The creation of multiple characters in ‘ALFA’ and ‘Exodus’ must stop. With no bridge in place it was a good idea to encourage multiple characters, an excellent acclimatisation for both sets of players, but until something is decided on a pan-ALFA perspective regarding multiple characters no new second characters should be allowed.
- Players with established characters in both worlds should not be punished for supporting both projects, but neither should such characters be allowed to cross-pollinate freely. If the ‘One Player, One Character’ ethic is decided to be retained then no-one need worry about these very few individuals with two established characters because the issue will be self-correcting over time anyway. (In fact after a few months I’d be surprised if there were more than a half-dozen such cases still in play.)
- It’s meant to be fun so don’t let it turn into a ‘thing’.

Caveat: If Exodus doesn’t pass the review stage then all of the above is null and void.

[Rotku]

Sadly, that also means all options apart from 1 are purely academical for the near future, as there can't be any cross-over for non-reviewed servers.

We're not even that far yet. There are still technical hurdles such as merging vaults, checking haks and so forth before we can even think of bridging the servers. So yes, this is purely a gauge of interests so we know which path we should be walking.

[Swift]

Multiple PCs will happen eventually for ALFA, but I do not think that day is here just yet.

[dergon darkhelm]

I votd otpion #3, but I am truly torn.

Having only one PC with which to interact with the world, with one perspective on events, one drive of purose, and one set of allegiances is something that I find quite compelling about the ALFA structure.

Onthe other hand, ALFA in NWN2 has never seen the wash pof players that there were in the old game, when you could see WD,DF,TLR,Sembia, and NC *each* with 12+ players logged on a single night.

Our player base is now much smaller. To integrate with Exodus beyond more that a token gesture is going to look a lot like adding another server. This means sprading out our precious players even more. Will allowing a second PC help to avoid this, so that a player could chose to log with whichever character is "closest to the action"? Maybe.

I surely don't like the idea of a meeting ever having a situation where I meet a player's Lathandrite PC and have a chat with her about the attacking undead, only to have the same player's Sharran PC show up on server a few weeks later to become involved in the event.

I don't know. I really just don't know.

[Veilan]

- Exodus is no longer referred to as a separate or ‘special case’ entity; it is either integrated or it isn’t. Whenever the term ALFA is used Exodus (or ‘Amn’ as the server may become known) is viewed as being part of that family of servers.

I fully concur. From my standpoint, the way to treat this with the least possible hassle is to see this whole thing simply as a server application by "Amn".

Of course, the player side of things is slightly more complicated, and luckily up to the PA. My private take on things is that players should get the most leniency possible while firmly maintaining the ultimate goal of 1 PC per player. So, no new PC creations to take advantage of this situation, but keep your two chars (without crossing over) as long as it takes for you to settle on one (which could even be by means of one of them dying, obviously).

None of this is going to be eaten half as hot as cooked, obviously. I think it's going to be a rather simple matter in the end. After all, let's not forget the Haze precedence - it worked out rather beautifully, and so will this.

Cheers,

[Sandermann]

So, no new PC creations to take advantage of this situation, but keep your two chars (without crossing over) as long as it takes for you to settle on one (which could even be by means of one of them dying, obviously).

That would seem fine by me.

As far as technical mergers goes that is something that does cause a few more problems. Last I spoke with Java he was comparing the two sets of haks for item and model appearance conflicts. So long as anything that can cross server (ie: any item that can come over in a PCs possesion) is the same the rest does not really matter (in haks). Placeables, tilesets, effects, textures, etc all stay on the server they originate so this causes no conflict.

I've also been speaking to some of the exodus council about the prospect of integration, as it will be down to me to police PCs crossing over at the Amn/BG border and I honestly think there will be little problem. The wealth of some PCs is very high in Amn, but that doesnt matter to me because it is wealth that cant be liquidated and so cant cross over. Magic items seem less prevalent in exodus, so the flow in that case would be from BG and TSM to Amn. This also makes IC sense with the distrust of the arcane the prevails in Amnian culture.

So long as their item pricing is correct, and I see no reason why it should be any further out than item pricing currently in BG and TSM (We STILL find stock OE magic items that have been given out), I'm not sure there is an issue with compliance in terms of the actual contents of the servers.

That said , it will be two - three months before BG is ready for any kind of link. Server canon has to be alligned and the areas to create such a link need building.

[Keryn]

I think interesting ideas have been shared here but as much as I like the idea of having Amn in our servers list I would rather not see this turning into a debate over the foundations of ALFA.

Permadeath (just an example), One PC/player are two of them and I dont think they should be object of debate in this, because we are not discussing ALFA. ALFA may have had better days, golden days even, but it is currently far from being in bad shape, with 10+ PCs logged in both servers at the same time several days of the week.

I cannot predict the future but I was skeptical like I-KP when BG went live, we had few players in TSM back then and only one active DM. Fact is BG went live, and we saw an influx of players who returned to play due to various situations, some were they didnt enjoy the setting we were offering then, others were personal problems with the server heads, etc... And we now have two lively servers. So... I think more if not bad, more gives more options and one of the things that make ALFA a very interesting place to play is certainly the possibility to move to other parts of Faerun through the portal system.

Including Amn will bring new players to the player pool, new DMs, and new builders. All of these are good news, it gives more options for our players in terms of settings, which is also good.

I believe we must have some common sense and respect that some players have PCs in both servers and need time to make the transition, though having the possibility to have 2 PCs in both ALFA and Amn as a single isolated case is problematic IMO, we may say that eventually one PC will die, everyone dies, but fact is that a well established PC over level 6/7, can live on and on depending of his player type of play. And without a time cap to make a decision and select one alone PC to play we might incur in another problem which is.

Very well, so the players of Exodus, were allowed two PCs, in reality this can last "forever" for all I care we cannot predict when one of the PCs will die, so what about me? An ALFA player am I the lesser brother in this process and am only allowed to play just one PC?

In all fairness if we don't pick a time gap to bring Amn integrated with ALFA and with the players playing just one PC, what we will have in our hands is an unfair situation where we treat folks differently.

And seriously... 6 months is a lot of time for a PC to die, for a player to make a decision, and to make a smooth transition, most PCs don't even last that long. IMO

[t-ice]

Very well written and interesting opinions people. I much enjoyed reading this thread. Even though I play a ALFA PC, I don't consider myself qualified to vote here, so I won't. I would like to share a couple thougths, though

First, a point of view on the "2 PCs till death" transition type I haven't seen expressed yet. This ties the player's way of playing the game to the survival of his character. If a player prefers to play 2 PCs, he then must play so as to keep his charactes alive at all cost, or lose that option. Even worse, it gives DMs a conflict of interest to either want to kill or preserve a character, based on how the DM prefers to see players play. Something perhaps not immediately obvious you should keep in mind with that.

As comes "server review" and "alfa pillars" and whatnot, I don't claim know exactly what they really entail. What I can say is that we'll try to be as flexible as possible to conform to all that, as we advance this process. There's really only one golden rule we go by, and that's that the purpose is to roleplay DnD and for everyone to have fun. Rules are there for the enjoyment of the players, not the other way around.

Like I interpret Sand already saying, I don't foresee much trouble manifest in play if we get the bridge up already as the servers are now. I believe we can manage what comes up with PC transfer neatly on per case DM per review basis. If, however, you pick up whatever book you have of guidelines and rules, and let a lawyer loose on the Amn module, I predict the manpower we have will be picking through the enumerated items still a year from now. What I mean is we can handle trouble that might arise as it arises, but I don't think we can patch all possible cases in the module from where it might arise. A situation BG and TSM also having, I read between the lines, though I do suspect in Amn this is naturally in a different order of magnitude currently. As my opinion, I will go as far as saying that pruning the module "trouble-free" is not necessarily even desirable. We'll all be better off by trusting our players and letting sanity-checked variety in than closing them in a perfectly balanced, sanitized, round room with all 4 walls padded.

You might note this doesn't contain my personal preference on the issue being voted. You can find that on Exodus player forums I hope this perspective and story from the other side of the fence was helpful to someone.

[Veilan]

It's always helpful - the more input, the better after all. By and large I agree with your sentiment, t-ice, but I do have to pick at some parts... probably I just misunderstood your intent there:

Even though I play a ALFA PC, I don't consider myself qualified to vote here

Why wouldn't you be? Your preference counts at least as much as that of any other player. So please, partake in the happy celebration of ALFA-style bureau... I mean, democracy!

Even worse, it gives DMs a conflict of interest to either want to kill or preserve a character, based on how the DM prefers to see players play.

A DM who "wants" to "kill" or "preserve" a character is a big, big problem. He's rather unfit to be the impartial arbiter of the gameworld he's supposed to be. I'm not entirely sure how this situation can legitimately occur to a good DM. Of course, I see no problem if the DM is simply a partner to a player saying "Hey, I want to focus on my other character - but retiring the first one seems boring. Can you set up something where I can go out in a blaze of glory?". But if someone who knew the dangers solo'd into a dark cave and is bleeding out, then I don't think DM intent should matter all that much .

We'll all be better off by trusting our players and letting sanity-checked variety in than closing them in a perfectly balanced, sanitized, round room with all 4 walls padded.

I fully understand this sentiment. It's what we do with our PnP sessions, too. With 1 DM and 4 players. However, the larger a project, the less this system works, and the more need there is to have rules be the arbiter of the game world. Because with size comes anomity. Comes lack of automated scrutiny. Comes jealousy of other people who get "more" playtime/DMtime/loot/love etc. Comes lack of feeling shared identity. Come conflicting interests. And so on. Sadly, bad behaviour is a lot more common as people get numerous.

Of course, the way I see it noone would want to scrub every little corner clean. Server applications for ALFA usually have a checklist of stores, static quests, mob spawns and loot tables that can simply be checked over. That these are checked may seem a bit of a hassle if you're looking from the perspective of one server. ALFA came from a perspective of a dozen servers or so, and its rules want to guarantee a comparable playing experience on each product wearing the ALFA brand stamp. There's a lot of possible pitfalls and also fairness to be considered (for builders, DMs and players alike). It often seems complicated, it's seldom beautiful, but it works far better than "common sense" once you have more than 5 people or so.

Of course, take everything with a grain of salt - I have a habit of playing the advocatus diaboli, and prefer to point out everything ugly up front so there won't be many surprises later. Also, it's kind of my job to be the bad guy .

I'm rather positive it'll all be resolved rather neatly, with the highest consideration for all involved parties. As I said, it's gonna be eaten half as hot as it's cooked.

Cheers,

[javajutsu]

Howdy!

Like T-Ice, I'm a newcomer here. I don't have an ALFA PC created (didn't have time between server hosting and other RL duties). But I'm extremely grateful for the gracious way that Rotku started this poll, and has consistently kept both the interests of his own membership and of Exodus front-and-center. As he put it, looking for compromise that everyone can live with.

*applauds*

Very well, so the players of Exodus, were allowed two PCs, in reality this can last "forever" for all I care we cannot predict when one of the PCs will die, so what about me? An ALFA player am I the lesser brother in this process and am only allowed to play just one PC?

Keryn, you make some great points, but I'd like to offer some thoughts about that one.

As of this writing, Exodus and ALFA are still separate communities who have agreed to share their player base. In reality, anyone from ALFA is free to create a 2nd PC at Exodus (or vice versa) -- up until if/when that door is closed, which will depend largely (if not entirely) on the outcome of this poll and the discussion it initiates.

Also in reality, most of the players who currently have 2 PCs (one in Exodus, one in ALFA) have had so for a long time. I.e. they've been active, supporting members of both communities, some of them since "go live" on both sides of the pond.

I-KP, Arvuelos (iclyious), causk, GlassRain, Loulabelle, AcadiusLost, Nuran... These aren't lightweights. As I-KP put it so well, these are the sort of players who make our imaginary worlds breathe and live, and create a populated and vibrant place for new players to come join.

So this isn't about "Exodus players who would be allowed to have 2 PCs" (for some period of time, or indefinitely). It's about long-time contributing members of both communities being allowed some considerate way to continue both PCs (if they choose), as well as anyone else who wants to enjoy the same benefits as them.

So... I guess what all that is saying is, don't be a stranger, and don't feel like the "lesser brother". We should be friends and peers in this, looking for a solution that everyone can live with (assuming one can be found). The only walls keeping you out of taking part in that, are the ones created by your own choices.

No matter how this is resolved, I'm confident that our communities will be enriched by the outcome. We're already closer and better off, in my opinion. We're playing more, and having fun. And that's a good thing, if not the thing..

[jmecha]

I personally look forward to walls coming down between ALFA and Exodus, I think it would be a beautiful thing for the two communities to become one. As for what to do with multiple PC's here and there and how such is handled, I honestly do not care. The how we do it really just comes down to silly semantics and devilish details that can be argued and scrutinized forever. I trust Admin and Leadership on both sides of the imaginary fence to blend both communities with grace and maturity. Combining Exodus and ALFA provides everyone a larger playground with more play mates to share and enjoy it all with, and as I said before I look forward to seeing the two become one.