Exodus Integration : A Poll

[Brokenbone]

I've only checked out the pretty informative Exodus forums, but I get the impression that the Exodus game "to date" has been about the pursuit of the Amnian dream of status, status and more status. I was really impressed by the materials, the depth, the social ladder stuff with all the "metal" labels and all that stuff. An extremely deep dive into Amn, I guess.

Why would locals leave? Trade I guess, and go back to Amn with more status on success, or stay away in exile and shame if they get ensnared in BG / TSM or other server matters?

What would visitors from various ALFA servers expect? They're foreigners/outlanders, sometimes even stinky mages or demihumans, reception in Amn is obviously well short of kill on sight, but it's a particular vibe that maybe the Exodus folks have cultivated (consistent, it would appear, with canon) that unaware visitors might not "get."

Not "worried" about it AT ALL, just got the impression, written materials-based only, that the social ladder was the be all and end all in Exodus's Amn. Still, it sounds like a "community vitality" (or in other words, survival of struggling communities) thing is more the driving motivation for merger, so do what you gotta do. If everything turns out to be a horrible experiment gone wrong, back-out, roll-back, apologize for trying to do the right thing and move on.

[Veilan]

What the lack of statics implies looking at this from the ALFA side ... why don't you tell me, please?

It's not much of a problem, and not an impediment to a merger. Static content would be fun to have, but as you noted, it's not the gist of the game.

[Sandermann]

As for statics, my favourite static in ALFA has been the herb gathering static in BG. It's been disabled for now, but wandering around the Cloakwood looking for plants made it into a kind of treasure hunt. Like looking for easter eggs in the back yard when I was a kid. I also preferred the randomisation of encounters in the old BG. When you always know what you're going to encounter, it becomes ... less interesting.

I am in process of writing a plug and play set of static scripts that cant be set up by changing a handful of variables and putting down the correct waypoints. The first of these is the DPSS system already in use on BG, another two will handle dynamic animal populations and a dynamic economy system, the animals being one of the natural resources feeding into the economy system. Sadly with me being the only active DM on BG this has all had to take a back seat as I try and do more live DMing.

These scripts coould eaily be passed to other servers for their own use, they are not hak dependant.

[Keryn]

I'm baffled to see option 2 getting the edge I must confess.

If some folks raised the issue of metagaming issues on a time frame with two PCs until one was retired...

Keeping two PCs one in each part of ALFA while others have freedom to go from our current ALFa servers to Amn and back... opens a whole series of possibility for metagaming. To tell the truth to me, option 2 shouldn't even be an option. unless it is an academic one just for "study" purposes of the community thoughts on this.

I, sure I am not the only one who see this as a huge problem...

[Veilan]

I'm baffled to see option 2 getting the edge I must confess.

If some folks raised the issue of metagaming issues on a time frame with two PCs until one was retired...

Keeping two PCs one in each part of ALFA while others have freedom to go from our current ALFa servers to Amn and back... opens a whole series of possibility for metagaming. To tell the truth to me, option 2 shouldn't even be an option. unless it is an academic one just for "study" purposes of the community thoughts on this.

I, sure I am not the only one who see this as a huge problem...

I can understand your worries, and yes, there's a lot of potential problems in that. But remember, it's just a poll, after all, and it probably won't touch an ALFA pillar.

I have to disagree on your perception of option 2 getting the "edge" though, as a lot of people prefer a single PC in the long run, and just choose varying preferences on how that should be achieved. And then, there's that "you may select up to 4 options", which kind of renders the poll rather useless to begin with, except for maybe the very broadest general gauging of tendencies . Oh, and a thread to sound off in!

Cheers,

[oldgrayrogue]

I didn't vote because I don't particularly like any of the options, though I am very much in favor of integration.

Like Jmecha I am very excited about a merger of the ALFA and Exodus player bases. The RP I have enjoyed with Exodus players on BG to date has been superb and I am really looking forward to more. While I recognize I am in a vast minority I really don't care if a player wants to play one or more than one PC, whether on either server or the same server. I regularly play with with the PCs of those who DM on other servers, some of whom I DM'd when I was DMing. Metagaming, abuses and all of the other scary stuff many seem worried over has never been an issue nor do I ever expect it to be. I don't see how multiple PCs is much different but that's just me. I am 100% alligned with the poster who said the overriding priniciple should be to trust one another as players, period.

So lets merge the servers as quickly as we can. If you want my vote, it would be to allow as much creative outlet for our membership as they desire -- if that's multiple PCs then its fine with me. If the majority thinks multiple PCs are too scary, then pick the one you like best I suppose (be it your Exodus or ALFA PC) and play with that one, but such limits on creative expression to me are unnecessary, nor do I see much merit in the notion that one PC makes you somehow focus more on that particular concept than others.

[I-KP]

Perhaps the votes for #2 also stem from a wider desire to see more play options, i.e., more than one character, on what may turn out to be all five possible ALFA servers and not just one PC for Exo and one PC for 'the rest of ALFA'. Anyway, if Exo is bridged option #2 should become moot because Exo is either subsumed or it isn't (no special cases, no special or half measures).

[Swift]

The votes for more than 1 PC are at 16, the votes for the differing options of "1 PC in the end" are still at 33, so option two it is hardly in the race

[Rotku]

The votes for more than 1 PC are at 16, the votes for the differing options of "1 PC in the end" are still at 33, so option two it is hardly in the race

Not true. See this:

. And then, there's that "you may select up to 4 options",

Also, surely following your logic there, Swift, I could say that there are 16 votes for the 6 Month change over option, and 33 votes against.


And Veilan, in regards to that rendering the poll useless, I couldn't disagree more. This poll is about finding which options the people in ALFA are comfortable accepting - not which option is their favourite. If 11 people believe that Option X is their top option, and no one else believes that that option is workable, yet 0 people believe Option Y is their top option, yet 20 believe that option is workable, I would prefer to see Option Y over Option X. This is what this poll is designed to tell me - I did not want a poll that created the polarity. In an ideal world, I would like to see a numbering system, where people can number off their preferences, but that is too complicated, so for now I'm sticking with this.

Like I said (or should have... can't recall if I did) this is a completely and utterly non-binding poll. It is to give us an idea of what people find workable.

[t-ice]

Let me reply to a couple of posts.

First, Brokenbone seems to worry about how PCs from current ALFA servers would ICly fit to Amn, and vice versa. Whether there's any synergy to have a bridge for PCs to cross in the first place.

My take is that the lack of obvious synergy is exactly why Exodus/Amn would contribute all the more to the "ALFA family of servers". Amn strives to be different from a Sword Coast adventure setting, and we manage that with success that varies. Thus we hope to have something more enrichening to offer than a larger territory of the same. The variety should be a richness.

So, why would an Amnian travel across to leave his plush homeland? Well, on quick thought, here's three reasons
1) He runs afoul of the status system. Getting (deservedly or not) a bad rep with all those Shadow Thieves around can make you want to change neighbourhoods.
2) He's born to Amn, but his own personality doesn't fit to the "Amnian mafia way" of connections and coin. Perhaps he's the heroic type that doesn't see his efforts rewarded, or a sorceror who's just had enough of hiding.
3) Most importantly, business. The Merchant class Amnians are crazy about status-proving fads and exotics to one-up each other. Exotic goods from far-away lands can reach ridiculous profit margins. So going out to hunt for them makes sense.

Why would an adventurer come to Amn? I can come up with two off my forehead:
1) Amn has its share of dangers, and able combatants are appreciated with plenty of coin. A mercenary instinct could lead a warrior to strive to make plush profits, and perhaps leave again when having to follow the ways of the locals to a degree eat into him too much.
2) Most importantly, business. Coming in to sell those exotics.

That said, your typical northern adventurer shouldn't be able to take on Amn on his own terms. It's supposed to be a mafia-inspired setting, and not many have made succesful dealings with the mafia on their own terms. But it's not that hard to engage Amn on Amnian terms. It is a challenge regardless, and we strive our utmost to make it a fun one. If you've perused our Player Handbook lore, you're well set for it, I dare claim. And there's an undercity, the Shadow Thieves, the Cowled Wizards, and numerous religious orders, for those who would not climb the social ladder as the merchants know it.

But yeah, glancing by Amn casually for an adventure will probably not net you a wagonload of the fabled coin. It's about involvement, initiative and effort. But you should be able to come in and have fun even as an "adventurer". Even if the Amnians would prefer to call you "mercenary". Though if the setting sthick gets in the way of people having fun, then we need to ease it, and along the way it has been eased and morphed quite a few times.

All that said, most PCs both sides the current ALFA/Exodus split would probably not fit very well on the other. All the more reason to what I'd like to reply to next about "option 2":

Second, Keryn sees concern for meta with more than one PC. Perhaps the options are not quite clearly-laid as they could. The proposed options never give a case with more than 1 PC on a server per player, as Keryn seems to imply. This will lay out my personal preference on the matter, too, but I'll take it to write and argue it here, as this forum appears to be where the decision of what is possible is made. Essentially we have two options here :

A) Exodus/Amn and ALFA are separate worlds with separate pools of PCs. The players can freely jump in between.

B) Amn becomes a ALFA server following, among other rules, the ALFA 1 PC rule.

Obviously A is what we have now, and the possiblity for B is a hoped outcome of the whole merger process. Both of these options are proven and viable. The innovative part in "option 2" is that after we bring Amn rules to "ALFA standards", each player could choose for himself which of these ways to play the two worlds. There's nothing for proponents of either option to gain by twisting the arm of those prefering to play the other way. Those choosing A get more possibilities to get RP and DM time with their PCs spanning two worlds. Those choosing B get more options to explore with the one PC they wish to fully devote to. Win-win.

Only metagaming issue with "2" is if the 2 PCs somehow manages to interact via a 3rd party. This should be forbidden, and I firmly believe our players are more than trustworthy and mature enough to make it a non-issue.

The same question has ran at the Exodus side, starting before it was posted here, and so far it's unanimous for "2". (While in all honesty I have a nagging feeling those thinking otherwise prefer to remain quiet rather than voice their concerns. For example a xenophobia of "ALFA PCs bashing in the gates, flooding in and (somehow) ruining RP as we know it".)

If there's a dogmatic issue with this choice among ALFAns, I guess I can understand that. You guys have had a long run and a proud history. But here's where we stand now, and all this is about having the most fun tomorrow. If this has to become an issue about "alfa pillars", how about call Exodus/Amn a collaboration instead of a ALFA server that has to follow the proud tradition and the manifest destiny. Thus be around the troublesome point and happy

[javajutsu]

I'm baffled to see option 2 getting the edge I must confess. ... Keeping two PCs one in each part of ALFA while others have freedom to go from our current ALFa servers to Amn and back... opens a whole series of possibility for metagaming.

I think you misunderstand that option. On the assumption that you aren't alone, I'll quote the description again:

"Option 2: Bridge the servers. Each player is permitted a PC in each world, but if they choose to have a PC on both sides of the bridge, neither PC can cross the bridge. As long as they have only one PC, it's free to travel without this restriction."

(Underline added by me.) If the player chooses the "two PCs" route, both PCs cannot be on the same side of the bridge at the same time.

So, player choice: either one PC who can travel freely among all ALFA servers (BG, TSM, Amn, ...?). Or one PC on one side of the Amn/ALFA bridge, another PC on the other side, and neither one can cross the bridge.

Is that better?

If you mean "this opens the possibility for players to mule things between their PCs via cooperative 3rd parties", of course it does. But that also assumes the worst in our player communities, and I don't think should (or does) apply to the vast majority of players. Those who break rules, get to meet the ban stick.

Of if you mean "John, with PCs on both sides of the bridge, learns about something cool and tells his friends. They travel across the bridge (whichever way) to take advantage of it or see it for themselves." Is this (meta-transfer of information) any more likely to happen than it already does via irc? I don't think so. And getting people to travel because they OOC heard about something cool on another server? This is bad? I don't understand. o.O

I'd rather create opportunities that assume the best in the people of our communities (and deal with the few who won't "play nice"), than build fences that assume the worst in everyone.

Finally, I remind everyone of the first option: just don't bridge the servers. If, at the end of the day, the community just can't accept the idea of option 2, then maybe it's best if there is no bridge at all. No bridge, no muling, no meta. Simple. But that cheats everyone out of being able to travel.

I find that a better idea, though, than forcing good players -- long-time contributing members, pillars of both communities; or anyone else who chooses to build a PC on the other side of the bridge before this decision is made -- to sacrifice one of their PCs on the altar of someone else's narrow or inflexible view.

At the end of the day, I'm sure we can work out something that the community "speaks" to and your Admins (and our Council) agree is the most fair to the most people.

[Keryn]

Player A playes PC "John" in BG and "Beavies" in Amn

Player B playes PC "Linda"

Linda meets John in BG, and has some RP with him finding some secrets about John and his ideas, also John tells him about some stuff.

Linda decides to head to Amn, and meets Beavies, eventually they end up talking and some dark topics come to the conversation, Linda discloses some info John had passed on to her, and that otherwise Beavies would never hear.

I think this situation illustrates what I meant. I am fully aware of what option 2 is. And it may very well lead to this type of situation.

If you ask me if we could trust our players to not abuse this, I would be tempted to say we could. But do you really know what crosses the mind of a player in the other side of the screen no matter how cool he looks like? When you open a door for exploits that you can hardly control? I think that is an obvious issue.

But don't take me wrong. I'd love the idea of having Amn connected to ALFA and being part of ALFA. We just cannot ignore this situations. I would be quite okay with a 6 months trial until someone decides which PC to go on with we would still maybe incur in this type of thing... but it would end soon enough. Option 2 leaves it open to last...

[Sandermann]

Inmy mind; we have sought compromise and this poll is about seeking the best compromise

in the past few day I have seen many ideas positied on what we should or should not do

Six years ago when I signed up to ALFA I signed up to a hardcore RP world, one PC, one chance to live that PC....and that meant a lot.

Talk all you want of multiple PCs, of level 3 starts, I am sure that may be fun. But it is not ALFA!.

Like many othwers,I have put hundreds upon hundreds of hours ito ALFA, in build, script and DM time, and I do this because I ove what we are, we used to proudly stnad for that and now all I see is simpering and limp wristed indescion and meaningless politeness.

FFS guys, we are ALFA, we are the end game when it comes to hardcore IC. We are the people other PWs like to sit and laugh at cos we know who brought down the ancient empire of Climshan, We know the unspoken 8th clan of Shanatar, we know that third crow war was not about just good and evil....

Yes..we may bring more players in by lowering our bar..but seriously we are the fucking bar...

A Compromise, let the PCs who exist when it comes to bridgin the servers live them selves out in their natural course, but that is it. We can not say "one ALFA PC, one Amn PC" because that means Amn is never really part fo ALFA and . Hell If I can have a different PC on Am,n then why cant I have a new PC on TSM?

[Keryn]

Amén Sand

[Magile]

Amén Sand

He said Amn, not Amén.