Don't get your hopes up. I have another class starting up next week. I do creep around here still.danielmn wrote:OMG
ITSA HEEGZ!!!!!!!!
How do we feel about playing and DMing in ALFA?
Moderator: ALFA Administrators
Keep on trucking man my OAS applicant buddy! I'll keep a seat warm for you when you have more free time on your hands! 
Zyrus Meynolt: [Party] For the record, if this somehow blows up in our faces and I die, I want a raiseSwift wrote: Permadeath is only permadeath when the PCs wallet is empty.
<Castano>: danielnm - can you blame them?
<danielmn>: Yes,
<danielmn>: Easily.
"And in this twilight....our choices seal our fate"
DM's in the pen and paper world are referees, story-tellers, and role players all rolled into one. Their job is simple in concept: create an opportunity for the players to experience adventure; challenge them to perform, then reward them if they succeed and let the necessary consequences of failure come to pass.
It's a tough job in execution, though. You get vested in the characters in your campaign, and you find yourself cheering for them when they succeed, and feel somewhat guilty when they fail. Did you set them up to fail? Were you fair? If the roles were reversed, would you feel slighted? It's easy to find yourself wanting to pull punches and hard to do the right thing: conclude they were not playing as well as you expected and/or were victims of unfriendly dice, and let the chips fall where they must.
There are DM's on both ends of the spectrum: the "Monty Hall" DM's who don't put very challenging risks in front of rather generous rewards. These DM's are poor because they are cheating their players out of a key element of adventure: the thrill of a well-earned success. The other end is the killer DM; the ones that put brutal challenges in front of rather nominal rewards. The players here feel like they're banging their heads against a wall of futility. For this reason, players are rather picky about their DM's.
When players transfer from campaign to campaign, it is uncommon that DM's allow their PC's to transfer. They feel disarmed at the lack of familiarity of the character's background, and uncertain that the wealth and power amassed by the PC is rightfully earned. When it is permitted, the DM's often insist on auditing the character and altering the balance to suit the new campaign. This is prudent in that the DM needs to know the balance of the strength of the party to the campaign he's engineering.
In ALFA, however, this practice does not happen. Players and their characters float freely between DM to DM, campaign to campaign, with static content splashed in. Add onto this the awkwardness of the DM client and the medium in which a DM must operate, and you can understand that DM's are extremely handcuffed in striking a proper balance. Without some kinds of guidelines that keep some level of parity between DM's, it would be much more chaotic.
This is why I was frustrated with the one pc rule. Were I to be a player in ALFA, I would like to use my character exclusively with one DM in one campaign at a time, giving that DM exclusive run of that particular character until a conclusion of an entire campaign. In order to be allowed to play my free hours, I would then like to keep separate characters on separate servers in different campaigns. Then character A would be with DM X and character B would be with DM Y. The fact that A advanced more quickly and had more wealth and power compared to B would not be an issue because X & Y were balancing their campaigns to the strength of the respective characters.
This greatly reduces the need for standards to be so extremely tight and allows players and DM's to experience a wider variety of adventures. I understand ALFA's precepts and know they won't change, so I won't champion that cause. I would rebutt that notion that by compelling folks to play just one character, and given the logical limitations on the availability of DM's to satisfy the gaming demand of the players, they will take two courses of action:
Play their PC more outside the campaign setting (thus the constant need for more and more static content and the draw of farming)
Play outside of ALFA, be it on other PW's, single player games, pen-and-paper, etc.
With all the problems that ALFA has with player turnover, frustrations with endless rules tweaks, and issues with static content, I fail to see the wisdom of this course. ALFA could be so much for so many, and this is a source of major disappointment on many levels. Again, I understand the ideas, but one has to step back and look at the bigger picture and consider the dramatic price of such high ideals.
The reason I take so much effort here to explain this is because it was the logic that I had to construct that ultimately lead to me concluding that ALFA was not for me. There are too many walls that separate players and DM's that are preventing gaming from happening. These walls are the logical extensions of the framework upon which ALFA has been built. Its goal of being all Faerun open 24/7, the limit of one character to experience it, and the time zone and free time differences of its membership are artificial barriers to playing. These walls lead to frustration, which leads to bickering, which poisons the fun atmosphere.
In my estimation, it was the barrier to thriving. Sure, ALFA could exist as long as there were determined players and DM's willing to endure the oppressive weight of its framework, but I looked at the mood and tone of the ALFA membership and concluded that only the heartiest of crusaders were able to last, and those folks had mostly become jaded. It was the opposite of why I play: to have fun.
Please don’t say I didn’t try. I gave it my all, and contributed every way I could manage, and I still hope someone will prove me wrong and make all my work worth it. And to that end, let me leave you with one very simple thought:
What would you sacrifice to make ALFA thrive? Isn’t that an ideal too? What of these pillars that you consider to be important has a measure of flexibility that could be explored in the name of enriching ALFA’s appeal? Isn’t this a game, and aren’t we supposed to be having fun, and isn’t that a pillar too?
Please before you put your foot so firmly on the ground and your nose in the air and proclaim with great pride, “No, on this we can not waiver!” Ask yourself why. Better yet, explain what dire consequences might follow if it was to change. Please don’t use circular reasoning: ALFA is this way because that’s what ALFA is. Yes, if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same, but the heart of the question is: what is the logical support for that position.
I only ask this because I wish the best for those who come here, and I think it’s fundamental to a lot of the issues that arise.
It's a tough job in execution, though. You get vested in the characters in your campaign, and you find yourself cheering for them when they succeed, and feel somewhat guilty when they fail. Did you set them up to fail? Were you fair? If the roles were reversed, would you feel slighted? It's easy to find yourself wanting to pull punches and hard to do the right thing: conclude they were not playing as well as you expected and/or were victims of unfriendly dice, and let the chips fall where they must.
There are DM's on both ends of the spectrum: the "Monty Hall" DM's who don't put very challenging risks in front of rather generous rewards. These DM's are poor because they are cheating their players out of a key element of adventure: the thrill of a well-earned success. The other end is the killer DM; the ones that put brutal challenges in front of rather nominal rewards. The players here feel like they're banging their heads against a wall of futility. For this reason, players are rather picky about their DM's.
When players transfer from campaign to campaign, it is uncommon that DM's allow their PC's to transfer. They feel disarmed at the lack of familiarity of the character's background, and uncertain that the wealth and power amassed by the PC is rightfully earned. When it is permitted, the DM's often insist on auditing the character and altering the balance to suit the new campaign. This is prudent in that the DM needs to know the balance of the strength of the party to the campaign he's engineering.
In ALFA, however, this practice does not happen. Players and their characters float freely between DM to DM, campaign to campaign, with static content splashed in. Add onto this the awkwardness of the DM client and the medium in which a DM must operate, and you can understand that DM's are extremely handcuffed in striking a proper balance. Without some kinds of guidelines that keep some level of parity between DM's, it would be much more chaotic.
This is why I was frustrated with the one pc rule. Were I to be a player in ALFA, I would like to use my character exclusively with one DM in one campaign at a time, giving that DM exclusive run of that particular character until a conclusion of an entire campaign. In order to be allowed to play my free hours, I would then like to keep separate characters on separate servers in different campaigns. Then character A would be with DM X and character B would be with DM Y. The fact that A advanced more quickly and had more wealth and power compared to B would not be an issue because X & Y were balancing their campaigns to the strength of the respective characters.
This greatly reduces the need for standards to be so extremely tight and allows players and DM's to experience a wider variety of adventures. I understand ALFA's precepts and know they won't change, so I won't champion that cause. I would rebutt that notion that by compelling folks to play just one character, and given the logical limitations on the availability of DM's to satisfy the gaming demand of the players, they will take two courses of action:
Play their PC more outside the campaign setting (thus the constant need for more and more static content and the draw of farming)
Play outside of ALFA, be it on other PW's, single player games, pen-and-paper, etc.
With all the problems that ALFA has with player turnover, frustrations with endless rules tweaks, and issues with static content, I fail to see the wisdom of this course. ALFA could be so much for so many, and this is a source of major disappointment on many levels. Again, I understand the ideas, but one has to step back and look at the bigger picture and consider the dramatic price of such high ideals.
The reason I take so much effort here to explain this is because it was the logic that I had to construct that ultimately lead to me concluding that ALFA was not for me. There are too many walls that separate players and DM's that are preventing gaming from happening. These walls are the logical extensions of the framework upon which ALFA has been built. Its goal of being all Faerun open 24/7, the limit of one character to experience it, and the time zone and free time differences of its membership are artificial barriers to playing. These walls lead to frustration, which leads to bickering, which poisons the fun atmosphere.
In my estimation, it was the barrier to thriving. Sure, ALFA could exist as long as there were determined players and DM's willing to endure the oppressive weight of its framework, but I looked at the mood and tone of the ALFA membership and concluded that only the heartiest of crusaders were able to last, and those folks had mostly become jaded. It was the opposite of why I play: to have fun.
Please don’t say I didn’t try. I gave it my all, and contributed every way I could manage, and I still hope someone will prove me wrong and make all my work worth it. And to that end, let me leave you with one very simple thought:
What would you sacrifice to make ALFA thrive? Isn’t that an ideal too? What of these pillars that you consider to be important has a measure of flexibility that could be explored in the name of enriching ALFA’s appeal? Isn’t this a game, and aren’t we supposed to be having fun, and isn’t that a pillar too?
Please before you put your foot so firmly on the ground and your nose in the air and proclaim with great pride, “No, on this we can not waiver!” Ask yourself why. Better yet, explain what dire consequences might follow if it was to change. Please don’t use circular reasoning: ALFA is this way because that’s what ALFA is. Yes, if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same, but the heart of the question is: what is the logical support for that position.
I only ask this because I wish the best for those who come here, and I think it’s fundamental to a lot of the issues that arise.
Duck One
Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
-
JaydeMoon
- Fionn In Disguise
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Paradise
- Contact:
The prodigal Duck raises some interesting points...
In order for your PC A with DM X and PC B with DM Y to work as well as you imply, we would have to ensure that PC C played by Player 4 is not freely moving between DM X and DM Y ever. Which defeats the sense of openness and ability to cross servers and involve yourself wherever you go in a persistant world.
Of all of the issues ALFA faces, of all of the possible drawbacks to being a member in ALFA compared to another PW, the one character rule is probably on the lower end of the spectrum.
One of the main reasons the one PC rule might be problematic is the too-thin spread of DMs across servers that are vastly separated in terms of geography. As we are seeing a good focus of DMs on one or two servers, the player base on those two servers are thriving and I do not think you will hear complaints of nothing to do. There is truly less need for players to move about because their appetite for solid RP is being sated.
I think that one of the biggest lessons we should take from NWN1 and ALFA's servers is to increase our scope only as we have the players and DMs to support it. Servers may be ready for Live, but that does not mean they should be made live. If the result will be a thinning of concentration on all of the servers, then we should hold the servers in reserve until we are ready to man them.
If you have plenty to do, lot's of DM coverage, and a good system of standards (current DMA is doing a bang up job of making that happen)... well, you are in much less danger of being bored as the only one logged on (lessening your OOC need to play elsewhere) and the point of unbalance is greatly diminished as a concern (lessening your need to be a different PC to play in a different DMs campaign).
Now, that speaks to needs. Wants and desires are another story. Some people WANT to play a second character. How cool would that be? I'd be for a change allowing a second character in ALFA. I'm not gonna push the issue or campaign for it, because it's not that big a deal to me and if I REALLY want to play a different PC... well, there are a host of games and PWs where I can fulfill that particular desire, it doesn't HAVE to be in ALFA.
In order for your PC A with DM X and PC B with DM Y to work as well as you imply, we would have to ensure that PC C played by Player 4 is not freely moving between DM X and DM Y ever. Which defeats the sense of openness and ability to cross servers and involve yourself wherever you go in a persistant world.
Of all of the issues ALFA faces, of all of the possible drawbacks to being a member in ALFA compared to another PW, the one character rule is probably on the lower end of the spectrum.
One of the main reasons the one PC rule might be problematic is the too-thin spread of DMs across servers that are vastly separated in terms of geography. As we are seeing a good focus of DMs on one or two servers, the player base on those two servers are thriving and I do not think you will hear complaints of nothing to do. There is truly less need for players to move about because their appetite for solid RP is being sated.
I think that one of the biggest lessons we should take from NWN1 and ALFA's servers is to increase our scope only as we have the players and DMs to support it. Servers may be ready for Live, but that does not mean they should be made live. If the result will be a thinning of concentration on all of the servers, then we should hold the servers in reserve until we are ready to man them.
If you have plenty to do, lot's of DM coverage, and a good system of standards (current DMA is doing a bang up job of making that happen)... well, you are in much less danger of being bored as the only one logged on (lessening your OOC need to play elsewhere) and the point of unbalance is greatly diminished as a concern (lessening your need to be a different PC to play in a different DMs campaign).
Now, that speaks to needs. Wants and desires are another story. Some people WANT to play a second character. How cool would that be? I'd be for a change allowing a second character in ALFA. I'm not gonna push the issue or campaign for it, because it's not that big a deal to me and if I REALLY want to play a different PC... well, there are a host of games and PWs where I can fulfill that particular desire, it doesn't HAVE to be in ALFA.
I feel like more enforced and stricter standards are making things more consistent across servers. This is probably a more realistic way to standardize rather than using different PCs for different campaigns. In a world that's as persistent as ALFA wants to be, then events on one server affected by PC A will likely be felt in some way by PC B, even if they're played by the same player. In fact, in order to keep campaign environments truly separate, I don't see any option but to have a bunch of quarantined servers that don't even allow travel between them. Seems like that opens a lot of doors for things that might best be left closed.
However, I could be wrong, and wouldn't at all be against allowing multiple PCs to see what happens, especially if it was for a trial period. In fact, I'd be glad to get rid of the 1 PC rule just to bring duck back, let alone any other new/old members. As long as the spirit of intense RP is kept in ALFA, forget the rest of the rules and bring on more players and DMs!
However, I could be wrong, and wouldn't at all be against allowing multiple PCs to see what happens, especially if it was for a trial period. In fact, I'd be glad to get rid of the 1 PC rule just to bring duck back, let alone any other new/old members. As long as the spirit of intense RP is kept in ALFA, forget the rest of the rules and bring on more players and DMs!
Currently laying the smackdown on Faerun as: Keryn Tel'Jora, who is XXX-TREME!!!.
Currently explaining the meaninglessness of it all as Vizian Nazyr.
Currently pointing out all other characters' shortcomings as Stephen the Archer.
Currently explaining the meaninglessness of it all as Vizian Nazyr.
Currently pointing out all other characters' shortcomings as Stephen the Archer.
-
AcadiusLost
- Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
- Posts: 5061
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:38 am
- Location: Montara, CA [GMT -8]
- Contact:
-
FanaticusIncendi
- Illithid
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:58 am
- Location: Exile
We'll see how long the standards last anyway...Senor T wrote:I feel like more enforced and stricter standards are making things more consistent across servers.
On the "many servers-many PC"
Having one character able to move to other servers is one of the niches of ALFA. It's a real mess with dms (especially when you play evil stuff), but the "possibility of travel" is what makes the whole thing special. It makes the world feel bigger.
Coming soon in a server near you.
-
Nyarlathotep
- Owlbear
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: The Hollow
- Contact:
I've always felt the 1 PC rule served certain practical ends, to be honest I doubt we are a mature enough community to handle it. We are far too paranoid about the existence of META knowledge for it ever work.
On the other hand I've yet to hear a good argument as to why we do not have some sort of PC retirement system in place. Some sort of system for a player to retire a PC for some time period (lets say a minimum of 6 months or so) and then later be allowed to pick up that PC at a later time. Lets be honest, playing the same character for years can get boring and sometimes a change is in order. For a player to leave for or stop playing for several months until the character feels fresh again does not serve ALFA's interests in anyway.
On the other hand I've yet to hear a good argument as to why we do not have some sort of PC retirement system in place. Some sort of system for a player to retire a PC for some time period (lets say a minimum of 6 months or so) and then later be allowed to pick up that PC at a later time. Lets be honest, playing the same character for years can get boring and sometimes a change is in order. For a player to leave for or stop playing for several months until the character feels fresh again does not serve ALFA's interests in anyway.
Lurker at the Threshold
Huntin' humans ain't nothin' but nothin'. They all run like scared little rabbits. Run, rabbit, run. Run, rabbit. Run, rabbit. Run rabbit. Run, rabbit, run! RUN, RABBIT, RUN! ~
Otis Driftwood, House of a Thousand Corpses
Huntin' humans ain't nothin' but nothin'. They all run like scared little rabbits. Run, rabbit, run. Run, rabbit. Run, rabbit. Run rabbit. Run, rabbit, run! RUN, RABBIT, RUN! ~
Otis Driftwood, House of a Thousand Corpses
I absolutely agree, hey if it was me...we'd have as many characters as we wanted. My point was more about allowing PC's to travel.Nyarlathotep wrote:I've always felt the 1 PC rule served certain practical ends, to be honest I doubt we are a mature enough community to handle it. We are far too paranoid about the existence of META knowledge for it ever work.
On the other hand I've yet to hear a good argument as to why we do not have some sort of PC retirement system in place. Some sort of system for a player to retire a PC for some time period (lets say a minimum of 6 months or so) and then later be allowed to pick up that PC at a later time. Lets be honest, playing the same character for years can get boring and sometimes a change is in order. For a player to leave for or stop playing for several months until the character feels fresh again does not serve ALFA's interests in anyway.
The paranoia is one part of alfa that i'll never understand. It seems linked to people not wanting characters to be more powerful than the rest (sort of like MMO games, everyone follows a template for progression)...but, whatever.
Coming soon in a server near you.
One of the major differences between ALFA and PnP is that in PnP the DM has the whole of the Realms as his/her playground. A single adventure can stay in one relatively small locale or span the breadth of Faerun (or wherever).
In ALFA we kinda shut that down. DMs don't really feel free to cross server lines. It's like they're cops and can only patrol in their citiy's jurisdiction. I've thrown this out before and I'll throw it out again. What if we opened up every server to every DM? And considerin' we have all these standards and such now, a DM should operate the same on one server as they would on another. So, if a PC heads to another server, any DM can just as easily head there as well. We have this whole, ask permission, reluctant giving of the DM password thing we do now. Opening up ALFA to ALFA DMs, I know that's crazy, would:
A.) provide consistent DMing on all servers as any DM can log onto any server and DM at any time.
and...
B.) minimize the dreaded, log onto a server devoid of DM life, when in fact, that Westgate DM can say, "gimme a sec, I feel like DMing. I'll jump onto Raven's Bluff and hook up something for ya."
DMs hang out in chat all the time. But whatta you see all the time? Somebody logs in and says, "Hey, any SD DMs on?" None of the other DMs bother to say anything because they don't DM on Shadowdale. But if any ALFA DM can DM anywhere in ALFA, someone can log into chat and simply ask the question, "Hey, any DMs on?"
And Duck's right... I am jaded.
Anyway. What was the stupid topic again?
In ALFA we kinda shut that down. DMs don't really feel free to cross server lines. It's like they're cops and can only patrol in their citiy's jurisdiction. I've thrown this out before and I'll throw it out again. What if we opened up every server to every DM? And considerin' we have all these standards and such now, a DM should operate the same on one server as they would on another. So, if a PC heads to another server, any DM can just as easily head there as well. We have this whole, ask permission, reluctant giving of the DM password thing we do now. Opening up ALFA to ALFA DMs, I know that's crazy, would:
A.) provide consistent DMing on all servers as any DM can log onto any server and DM at any time.
and...
B.) minimize the dreaded, log onto a server devoid of DM life, when in fact, that Westgate DM can say, "gimme a sec, I feel like DMing. I'll jump onto Raven's Bluff and hook up something for ya."
DMs hang out in chat all the time. But whatta you see all the time? Somebody logs in and says, "Hey, any SD DMs on?" None of the other DMs bother to say anything because they don't DM on Shadowdale. But if any ALFA DM can DM anywhere in ALFA, someone can log into chat and simply ask the question, "Hey, any DMs on?"
And Duck's right... I am jaded.
Anyway. What was the stupid topic again?
"You people have not given Private Pyle the proper motivation! So, from now on, when Private Pyle fucks up... I will not punish him. I will punish all of you! And the way I see it, ladies... you owe me for one jelly donut! Now, get on your faces!"
-
JaydeMoon
- Fionn In Disguise
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Paradise
- Contact:
The topic was: derailed.
There are at least two major issues in dealing with the topic of DMs being able to DM on all servers:
Issue 1: Ownership
HDMs have, and some still do, feel like they own their module. This combined with a lack of standards across the board to cause HDMs to only allow in those DMs they felt comfortable with, DMs they felt would run things according to the respective HDMs standards and opinions. This is still apparent in some places.
HDM Q knowing that DM A runs adventures on Server X that seem to HDM Q to be low risk high gain doesn't want DM A dming on his server where he likes to play things with high challenge and little reward. Since it's his server, that becomes his prerogative.
Now, ALFA as a community has set a few (some might say dangerous) precedences regarding module 'ownership'. Modules developed with ALFA in mind become community property. You are welcome to take it away, but ALFA will keep it as well, and the one connected to ALFA is under the authority of ALFA as a whole.
With the community taking 'ownership' of the modules that connect to it's vault and other servers and with the community creating solid standards of awards for DMs to give their players, I think that in NWN2, the issue of ownership should be less of one. The result could be a centralized DM application process that gives successful applicants who are properly trained access to DM on all servers.
HDMs would still be the arbiters of what constitutes realistic plots, but they could rest easy knowing that DMs are not going to unbalance the server they hold stewardship over by increasing average wealth or over rewarding in terms of XP.
Issue 2: DMs as Players
Now, if all DMs become global, do we allow them to play at all? On which servers? This becomes an issue if we make a ruling that if you are a DM, you must be a global DM. Now, if we make it so that some DMs are global and some are local to one or two servers, then DMs can have their choice. Less to write about on this issue, since the points within are pretty much known to all.
There are at least two major issues in dealing with the topic of DMs being able to DM on all servers:
Issue 1: Ownership
HDMs have, and some still do, feel like they own their module. This combined with a lack of standards across the board to cause HDMs to only allow in those DMs they felt comfortable with, DMs they felt would run things according to the respective HDMs standards and opinions. This is still apparent in some places.
HDM Q knowing that DM A runs adventures on Server X that seem to HDM Q to be low risk high gain doesn't want DM A dming on his server where he likes to play things with high challenge and little reward. Since it's his server, that becomes his prerogative.
Now, ALFA as a community has set a few (some might say dangerous) precedences regarding module 'ownership'. Modules developed with ALFA in mind become community property. You are welcome to take it away, but ALFA will keep it as well, and the one connected to ALFA is under the authority of ALFA as a whole.
With the community taking 'ownership' of the modules that connect to it's vault and other servers and with the community creating solid standards of awards for DMs to give their players, I think that in NWN2, the issue of ownership should be less of one. The result could be a centralized DM application process that gives successful applicants who are properly trained access to DM on all servers.
HDMs would still be the arbiters of what constitutes realistic plots, but they could rest easy knowing that DMs are not going to unbalance the server they hold stewardship over by increasing average wealth or over rewarding in terms of XP.
Issue 2: DMs as Players
Now, if all DMs become global, do we allow them to play at all? On which servers? This becomes an issue if we make a ruling that if you are a DM, you must be a global DM. Now, if we make it so that some DMs are global and some are local to one or two servers, then DMs can have their choice. Less to write about on this issue, since the points within are pretty much known to all.
This creates some exciting possibilities as well. A GDM team could more plausibly create Global Events, with less likelihood of stalling out. A lead GDM could coordinate efforts. Maybe it would be waaay too much infrastructure, but it is wholly possible with motivated, creative, organized individuals.Possible Solution:
Ownership of ALFA modules is extended to ALFA. Certainly creators can keep their own copy and do with it as they please, but a module submitted to ALFA is also given to the community and cannot be taken away. The server, as attached to ALFA's vault and other ALFA servers, is under the authority of ALFA's Admin.
HDMs are not the owners of their respective servers, but stewards who are responsible to ensure that plots on their servers are realistic and mesh with the overall direction of their server and ALFA's world as a whole. HDMs may or may not be GDMs as they desire.
DMs step up incrementally as they desire. Applicants choose a server and start as a PADM. Once they have proven their mettle as a DM, having passed requisite training and standards testing or whatever we instill, they become an ADM of that server.
PADMs and ADMs are allowed to play PCs on servers they do not DM.
ADMs may wish to take the next step towards more global DMing. GDMs would have to pass muster at the DMA level. Once granted, these GDMs can no longer play a PC, but have the broad ability to take their plots everywhere.
ADMs may DM on multiple servers, but we should cap that amount (based on the servers we have available) before they must apply as GDMs if they wish to DMon additional servers.
Sorry, if I follow the tracks where they lead, but I agree with Jayde on his points. It isn't easy for a dm to know the history/NPC's/factions/pc groups/pc's histories and desires and goals/ emplaced monster tribes/ important places on one server...let alone multiple servers. There is just too much info. to make the storyline persistant...ie. a dm dedicated to one server plays an NPC one way, so does the whole team, DM X who dm's all servers comes along and totally fubars that NPC's knowledge/reactions in front of PC's that already have a well grounded relationship with said NPC.
Global Dm's is a decent way to go....but I would say we would need each person of a global dm team to cover a two way street, not the whole city,
ie... responsible for dming on two servers. Player Group A travels from NC to SD, there is a global dm that handles both NC and SD, and takes care of said group. Said group then moves on to SEmbia, Global DM 1 hands the reigns to global DM 2, who is responsible for SD and Sembia.
Just my thoughts. Sorry to derail even more...move to another thread?
Daniel
Global Dm's is a decent way to go....but I would say we would need each person of a global dm team to cover a two way street, not the whole city,
ie... responsible for dming on two servers. Player Group A travels from NC to SD, there is a global dm that handles both NC and SD, and takes care of said group. Said group then moves on to SEmbia, Global DM 1 hands the reigns to global DM 2, who is responsible for SD and Sembia.
Just my thoughts. Sorry to derail even more...move to another thread?
Daniel
Zyrus Meynolt: [Party] For the record, if this somehow blows up in our faces and I die, I want a raiseSwift wrote: Permadeath is only permadeath when the PCs wallet is empty.
<Castano>: danielnm - can you blame them?
<danielmn>: Yes,
<danielmn>: Easily.
"And in this twilight....our choices seal our fate"
I like the idea of one PC per server or one "global" PC.. the two ends of the spectrum being mutually exclusive.
Down the track, if you decide one of your multiple PCs wants to go "global" you'd have maybe a 30 day "meta" cooling off period where you are required to only play that PC (and no other) on their home server before travelling, similar to the DM "meta" cooling off period.
If you wanted to switch back to multiple PC's I reckon retiring your "global" PC would be in order.
And honestly, I don't care if this has been discussed by the community before, I've never commented on the issue and my opinion is as valid as anyone's.
I think offering greater choice in many areas is the shot in the arm the community needs, more members = more builders = more DMs = more fun to be had 24/7.
While I am being contraversial, I also think throwing up enforced meta-walls is a bit silly, lets just trust the people that have been let in to ALFA are good enough role-players to not abuse meta-info and if they do, slap a temp ban on them or kick them out.. simple.
Down the track, if you decide one of your multiple PCs wants to go "global" you'd have maybe a 30 day "meta" cooling off period where you are required to only play that PC (and no other) on their home server before travelling, similar to the DM "meta" cooling off period.
If you wanted to switch back to multiple PC's I reckon retiring your "global" PC would be in order.
And honestly, I don't care if this has been discussed by the community before, I've never commented on the issue and my opinion is as valid as anyone's.
I think offering greater choice in many areas is the shot in the arm the community needs, more members = more builders = more DMs = more fun to be had 24/7.
While I am being contraversial, I also think throwing up enforced meta-walls is a bit silly, lets just trust the people that have been let in to ALFA are good enough role-players to not abuse meta-info and if they do, slap a temp ban on them or kick them out.. simple.
On indefinite real life hiatus
[22:52] <Veilan> obviously something sinister must be afoot if a DM does not have his social security number in his avatar name!
[22:52] <Veilan> obviously something sinister must be afoot if a DM does not have his social security number in his avatar name!