whats wrong with alfa?

[t-ice]

A one PC rule forces you to become truly invested in your PC and their story. It improves immersion and makes roleplay more meaningful.

This certainly has a ring of truth in it, but framed in another words it's saying "I'm forcing you to stick to 1 PC because I don't trust you to be able to compartmentalize 2 PCs and make parallel meaningful and immersive stories". Nobody would be forced to roll 2 PCs, after all, and by trying to force immersion by such a rule you're saying people aren't allowed to use their own best judgement to what's the most immersive, given the circumstance at the moment (such as player density in their timezone).

In essence we have to choose the least bad between:
1) One player skipping between PCs, not being invested in any.
2) One PC skipping between settings, plots and DMs, not being invested in any.
3) Not skipping anything, but being stuck to where you are when game and fun happens elsewhere.

I don't see risk 1 being inherently any worse for "meaningful immersion and roleplay" than 2. It will be for some players, but we wouldn't be forcing them to take that option, like we are now forcing everyone to risk 2 if they can't find game in their current place. I'd argue that effectively forcing PCs to be generic enough that they can travel if their server empties certainly leads to more cardboard-cut and boring PCs on average. And thus to no less meaningful roleplay.
If we trusted our players to be good roleplayers, we'd give them the option to choose for themselves when 1 would instead be the best for immersion and roleplay, and thus fun. (Notably 1 is pretty much never best for powergaming as you split your XP between PCs.)

[Adanu]

A one PC rule forces you to become truly invested in your PC and their story. It improves immersion and makes roleplay more meaningful.

This certainly has a ring of truth in it, but framed in another words it's saying "I'm forcing you to stick to 1 PC because I don't trust you to be able to compartmentalize 2 PCs and make parallel meaningful and immersive stories". Nobody would be forced to roll 2 PCs, after all, and by trying to force immersion by such a rule you're saying people aren't allowed to use their own best judgement to what's the most immersive, given the circumstance at the moment (such as player density in their timezone).

In essence we have to choose the least bad between:
1) One player skipping between PCs, not being invested in any.
2) One PC skipping between settings, plots and DMs, not being invested in any.
3) Not skipping anything, but being stuck to where you are when game and fun happens elsewhere.

I don't see risk 1 being inherently any worse for "meaningful immersion and roleplay" than 2. It will be for some players, but we wouldn't be forcing them to take that option, like we are now forcing everyone to risk 2 if they can't find game in their current place. I'd argue that effectively forcing PCs to be generic enough that they can travel if their server empties certainly leads to more cardboard-cut and boring PCs on average. And thus to no less meaningful roleplay.
If we trusted our players to be good roleplayers, we'd give them the option to choose for themselves when 1 would instead be the best for immersion and roleplay, and thus fun. (Notably 1 is pretty much never best for powergaming as you split your XP between PCs.)

Quiet, logic isn't allowed here :p

There is a lot of one size fits all in ALFA In all seriousness, and it is a direct consequence of the notion that ALFA is supposed to be more macro according to some in terms of player density and roles. Whether this is from Admins wanting to minimize workloads, or from lack of trust, or something else I don't know about in the private section I couldn't say for sure... but it's been there for a while.

[oldgrayrogue]

A one PC rule forces you to become truly invested in your PC and their story. It improves immersion and makes roleplay more meaningful.

This certainly has a ring of truth in it, but framed in another words it's saying "I'm forcing you to stick to 1 PC because I don't trust you to be able to compartmentalize 2 PCs and make parallel meaningful and immersive stories". Nobody would be forced to roll 2 PCs, after all, and by trying to force immersion by such a rule you're saying people aren't allowed to use their own best judgement to what's the most immersive, given the circumstance at the moment (such as player density in their timezone).

In essence we have to choose the least bad between:
1) One player skipping between PCs, not being invested in any.
2) One PC skipping between settings, plots and DMs, not being invested in any.
3) Not skipping anything, but being stuck to where you are when game and fun happens elsewhere.

I don't see risk 1 being inherently any worse for "meaningful immersion and roleplay" than 2. It will be for some players, but we wouldn't be forcing them to take that option, like we are now forcing everyone to risk 2 if they can't find game in their current place. I'd argue that effectively forcing PCs to be generic enough that they can travel if their server empties certainly leads to more cardboard-cut and boring PCs on average. And thus to no less meaningful roleplay.
If we trusted our players to be good roleplayers, we'd give them the option to choose for themselves when 1 would instead be the best for immersion and roleplay, and thus fun. (Notably 1 is pretty much never best for powergaming as you split your XP between PCs.)

Well, I am in favor of multiple PCs for entirely selfish reasons. Personally, I have no problem roleplaying 1 or 2 or 10 characters simultaneously in an IC fashion -- that is after all the point -- we get inside a character's skin and live their life ICly. But I don't think the 1 PC rule is about "forcing" immersion. The point I was trying to make is that when you play more than 1 PC you can become less invested in all of your PCs. When you are less invested, the immersive experience can suffer. This has never been an issue for me personally because I have no problem with PC death, except when they die very young because the story -- which I usually invest a lot of time in -- has not had a chance to develop. So for me personally, I have always felt invested in the "experience" of roleplaying the life and death story of a particular character more than roleplaying the "concept" of that character in perpetuity. When you are more invested in the experience - come what may - than the particular character concept, playing multiples detracts less from the immersive experience IMO. But now I am getting philosophical, and I think that in ALFA there are probably many players who do not share this philosophy, but instead are invested in the "concept" of their characters and seeing that concept survive to be played and enjoyed indefinately. Yes, they can choose to continue to play just that concept and never roll an alternate, but the question is if they are never truly invested in the alternate character does the quality of the roleplay for them, and everyone else, suffer. It is certainly a valid debate and not one defined in my mind simply as limiting choices.

[Zelknolf]

Well, I am in favor of multiple PCs for entirely selfish reasons. Personally, I have no problem roleplaying 1 or 2 or 10 characters simultaneously in an IC fashion -- that is after all the point -- we get inside a character's skin and live their life ICly. But I don't think the 1 PC rule is about "forcing" immersion. The point I was trying to make is that when you play more than 1 PC you can become less invested in all of your PCs. When you are less invested, the immersive experience can suffer. This has never been an issue for me personally because I have no problem with PC death, except when they die very young because the story -- which I usually invest a lot of time in -- has not had a chance to develop. So for me personally, I have always felt invested in the "experience" of roleplaying the life and death story of a particular character more than roleplaying the "concept" of that character in perpetuity. When you are more invested in the experience - come what may - than the particular character concept, playing multiples detracts less from the immersive experience IMO. But now I am getting philosophical, and I think that in ALFA there are probably many players who do not share this philosophy, but instead are invested in the "concept" of their characters and seeing that concept survive to be played and enjoyed indefinately. Yes, they can choose to continue to play just that concept and never roll an alternate, but the question is if they are never truly invested in the alternate character does the quality of the roleplay for them, and everyone else, suffer. It is certainly a valid debate and not one defined in my mind simply as limiting choices.

It seems that the mechanism by which roleplaying suffers in this scenario is to have someone who doesn't want an alternate character creating one. I don't think anyone's pushing for a "minimum active PCs" rule-- but instead a "may have more than 1, if desired" rule. Presumably, if they don't want the extra one, they wouldn't even bother to make it, and those who did would be those who would want (and hopefully enjoy) an alternate PC; there thus wouldn't be an alternate to not be invested in.

That's not to say that I don't think it would change the landscape some-- I think alternate PCs would give us a shift toward more adventure-ey play (that is, people are more likely to take risks with an alt). But we also have people clammoring for "more D&Dlike" (which seems to mean "more risky and violent" in that context) play every few months: this might be an avenue to allow that.

[t-ice]

That's not to say that I don't think it would change the landscape some-- I think alternate PCs would give us a shift toward more adventure-ey play (that is, people are more likely to take risks with an alt).

Plausible, if you considering that risking an alt to "foolish" adventure is easier. But on the other hand, if you consider that an alt can also be a more deep-and-narrow character as opposed to shallow-but-open-to-most-plots-anywhere, you open up the chances to play less "adventurousy, generic DnD" PCs as well. One PC policy is making it very marginal to play a deep-in-the-setting PC, because you will be excluded from too many options from having a game. Your alt could far more easily be a candlekeep scholar at BG, a druid-of-old at Moonshaes, a cowled wizard in Amn, or a deep-in-the-woods-elf on TSM (somebody help me with something WHL-specific?). Because if alts are possible you won't be excluding yourself as a player from the other 95% of plots by committing a PC deeply to something.

(Just look at the antipathy generated by the commited, and very fun I'm sure, new dwarf thing at TSM. It's people being sad that those who join are effectively excluded from lots of potential game with those who do not.)

[Zelknolf]

That's not to say that I don't think it would change the landscape some-- I think alternate PCs would give us a shift toward more adventure-ey play (that is, people are more likely to take risks with an alt).

Plausible, if you considering that risking an alt to "foolish" adventure is easier. But on the other hand, if you consider that an alt can also be a more deep-and-narrow character as opposed to shallow-but-open-to-most-plots-anywhere, you open up the chances to play less "adventurousy, generic DnD" PCs as well. One PC policy is making it very marginal to play a deep-in-the-setting PC, because you will be excluded from too many options from having a game. Your alt could far more easily be a candlekeep scholar at BG, a druid-of-old at Moonshaes, a cowled wizard in Amn, or a deep-in-the-woods-elf on TSM (somebody help me with something WHL-specific?). Because if alts are possible you won't be excluding yourself as a player from the other 95% of plots by committing a PC deeply to something.

(Just look at the antipathy generated by the commited, and very fun I'm sure, new dwarf thing at TSM. It's people being sad that those who join are effectively excluded from lots of potential game with those who do not.)

Deep and narrow and extra risk aren't mutually-exclusive concepts, I would note, and I might also argue that commiting to a campaign that excludes your character from other play is also a risk-- which people are more likely to take with an alt.

I don't think it's a bad thing, in any case. The ultimate goal here is fun-- with a narrowing statement at the top of the charter that says "D&D in FR," and my money's on net gain to fun with alts, simply by virtue of more people enjoying it enough to outweigh any grumps who insist we're violating the ephemeral spirit of ALFA.

[Electryc]

Too lazy to read through the posts so sorry if this is a rehash on multiplayer alfa. Take this as a grain of salt to those who have been steadfast in playing PC's or running DM's since NWN2 alfa start up (Not I). Personaly I'm for multi-player creations for all servers with the stipulation that your PC is limited to the realm(server) you created it on. Easy to implement I'm sure with scripted passports. I'm sure the PC's who like to jump to server to server for DM events would protest. The major drawback I see with multi-pc creations is all the other users pc's geared to helping out the main PC (Mega Meta abuse). The one PC per server would stop that abuse. I would only lift the ban on traveling on MAJOR quests, such as Two DM's working on different servers who create a cross server adventure thread. Which is kind of rare from my limited viewing (correct meh if I'm wrong) Fire Away!

[oldgrayrogue]

Travel accross servers is one of the coolest things about ALFA. I would say 1 alt is enough as it gives you an outlet to be creative and explore another concept, but also gives you freedom to travel with both PCs if you want to. Your alt should not visit your main PCs "home" server though, and vice versa. Meta can become a big problem with Alts that is not entirely addressed by travel restrictions. For example, while playing an alt a player can hear other PCs talking about their main PC, and perhaps revealing meta info. I played two PCs on another server years ago and always got a kick out of walking into a tavern with my Alt and hearing conversation about the exploits of my main PC. When stuff like that happens it becomes pure honor system to not use meta info. Some would argue that it destroys immersion as well. Many do not have an issue separating meta from IC, but it is a valid concern.

[wvincenti]

I can live with the concept of multiple PCs, especially if they're kept on separate servers and are not running a mercantile ring funneling goods and services to each other across the continent.
Will I want more than one PC? Probably not, I've got enough irons in the fire with one to keep me busy.

Players DMing and Playing on the same server?
I've seen too many folks give in to temptation over the years and I wouldn't suggest we raise the stakes on that by giving any Player the DM Wand on a server where his or her PC happens to be. It's just inviting trouble.

Banning travel for anything but major plots?
Please don't do this. Even real people experience the desire to visit places they've never been.
Forbidding it in game would kill that part of the experience for a lot of us.

-Bill

[CloudDancing]

Rehabilitation and 3 to 6 months bans vs ultimate shunning. Two of my friends have been banned because they had a few moments of bad judgement which was weighed ultimately against months and even years of good roleplay (in the case of one.) Loosing these people and not being able to help them fix the problems as well as seeing one getting a strike for REPORTING another player for cheating, just hurt me personally as I see hope and I forgive.

It also goes back to my comment on democracy does not serve small groups very well. Majority voting in such a small population ultimately leads to drama and people again, feel left out, powerless to change these aspects as listed above, and unappreciated. I feel consensus would better serve Alfa and honestly most of our big choices ultimately get hashed out via consensus and problem solving, even though the final call is voted by the admin. But seriously some people just cannot let go of this linear vision of how they want things to be. The world is changing.

At the same time gameplay is not fun or enjoyable. It seems like adventures have become littered with killings and losses of good viable roleplaying characters who represent an investment of time and going out on a limb to really connect with other players. From my work as a DM all I hear is "how can we make things harder and more dangerous!" What I see is frustration, an inability to just go out and explore the world and have the power to naturally skirt and avoid danger, and simply the environment being limited to DM'd roleplay events. And the people want story and development of their characters, not living in fear.

Campaigns are best for that situation, not spotty "maybe I will be there, maybe not" dming. That was one of the last straws for me. We got left in the ditch and our characters could not progress against thi s MASSIVE regional threat in which we saw little progress and all information pointed to failure and death PLUS there was three to four weeks between sessions. I lost total interest or connection with my character and did the natural thing, found my jollies elsewhere.

[wvincenti]

Cloud,
I'm sorry you lost interest, but life happens to all of us, Players and DMs alike.
What's going to come first keeping your job and paying your mortgage or DMing in ALFA?

-Bill

Campaigns are best for that situation, not spotty "maybe I will be there, maybe not" dming. That was one of the last straws for me. We got left in the ditch and our characters could not progress against thi s MASSIVE regional threat in which we saw little progress and all information pointed to failure and death PLUS there was three to four weeks between sessions. I lost total interest or connection with my character and did the natural thing, found my jollies elsewhere.

[Adanu]

Cloud,
I'm sorry you lost interest, but life happens to all of us, Players and DMs alike.
What's going to come first keeping your job and paying your mortgage or DMing in ALFA?

-Bill

Campaigns are best for that situation, not spotty "maybe I will be there, maybe not" dming. That was one of the last straws for me. We got left in the ditch and our characters could not progress against thi s MASSIVE regional threat in which we saw little progress and all information pointed to failure and death PLUS there was three to four weeks between sessions. I lost total interest or connection with my character and did the natural thing, found my jollies elsewhere.

Did you even read what CD said? What she said had nothing to do with RL and everything to do with the status quo being so bad she quit in frustration.

[rorax]

I think another major issue that ALFA might be losing players is that there is no strong feeling of the forgotten realms world in the game.

We got the names of the places, some npcs and deities that match the forgotten realms settings, but besides names and places, at least in my personal view - the feeling of the realms rarely come into play in other aspects.


I think some players who come because they want "forgotten realms" experience , getting disappointed and leave after a while.

[wvincenti]

Adanu,
I'm on the server with the massive regional conflict plot that stalled, which has now been laid to rest, limited my comments to that. *points below*
Why did the plot about the massive regional threat stall? Several of the DMs got busy out in the real world. Is there some other reason that I'm missing as to why it stalled?

-Bill

Cloud,
I'm sorry you lost interest, but life happens to all of us, Players and DMs alike.
What's going to come first keeping your job and paying your mortgage or DMing in ALFA?

-Bill

Campaigns are best for that situation, not spotty "maybe I will be there, maybe not" dming. That was one of the last straws for me. We got left in the ditch and our characters could not progress against thi s MASSIVE regional threat in which we saw little progress and all information pointed to failure and death PLUS there was three to four weeks between sessions. I lost total interest or connection with my character and did the natural thing, found my jollies elsewhere.

Did you even read what CD said? What she said had nothing to do with RL and everything to do with the status quo being so bad she quit in frustration.

[Adanu]

I think another major issue that ALFA might be losing players is that there is no strong feeling of the forgotten realms world in the game.

We got the names of the places, some npcs and deities that match the forgotten realms settings, but besides names and places, at least in my personal view - the feeling of the realms rarely come into play in other aspects.


I think some players who come because they want "forgotten realms" experience , getting disappointed and leave after a while.

Honestly, this is really just a consequence of having multiple DMs... everyone has their own interpretation and likes to inject modern concepts to more or less degree into the game. I can totally understand that grievance.

Adanu,
I'm on the server with the massive regional conflict plot that stalled, which has now been laid to rest, limited my comments to that. *points below*
Why did the plot about the massive regional threat stall? Several of the DMs got busy out in the real world. Is there some other reason that I'm missing as to why it stalled?

-Bill

Cloud,
I'm sorry you lost interest, but life happens to all of us, Players and DMs alike.
What's going to come first keeping your job and paying your mortgage or DMing in ALFA?

-Bill

Campaigns are best for that situation, not spotty "maybe I will be there, maybe not" dming. That was one of the last straws for me. We got left in the ditch and our characters could not progress against thi s MASSIVE regional threat in which we saw little progress and all information pointed to failure and death PLUS there was three to four weeks between sessions. I lost total interest or connection with my character and did the natural thing, found my jollies elsewhere.

Did you even read what CD said? What she said had nothing to do with RL and everything to do with the status quo being so bad she quit in frustration.

CD wasn't blaming them for getting busy. She was expressing frustration with that being the last straw pretty much.