How do we feel about playing and DMing in ALFA?

[Arkan Bladesinger]

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.

Not only this, but the plots, situations, relationships etc on the server live constantly, so a "hey, I come to DM you on server X" in chat approach could be a recipe for a catastrophe as in such a situation there would hardly be time to grasp all the essentials that should be known. Sometimes even a small pebble in wrong place can cause an avalanche. Even between two servers it would be hard to keep up to date on the current situation with all the possible factors if one were to do ad-hoc between them.

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.

We do already have few DM´s that have access to multiple servers, namely HDM´s of neighbouring servers, even though they are not called Global DM´s. This is for co-ordinating and so far, at least in current situation with few servers left, IMO this has been working very well in keeping neighbouring servers up to date of the major happenings in each other. This is also the basis for possible cross-server plots; established co-operation with your neighbours. This does not, of course, negate the idea of a multiserver DM, a one that would DM in many servers regularly, but personally I would not ever take such a post. Someone with considerably more time in his/her hands might, though.

About the manyplayer issue I feel it would only separate the servers more, making this a less of a consistant world compared to isles of servers in the aether and while I have all the faith in ALFA members and their rp I can´t help, but think of throwaway chars of bored people appearing here and there for a one night in campaign never-to-be-seen-again.

EDIT: Right, didn´t read Inny´s new continuation thread before posting. Move or delete or sue if you wish, but I won´t write this again

[Mulu]

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.

Is it the "right thing?" Only in a simulationist environment. In DM client I follow Lazybones advice and keep quickslotted the following commands:

Add +4 Con
Subtract -4 Con

Thus allowing me to on the fly fudge the power of the encounter in both directions, whether due to poor planning on my part, tactical failure or overwhelming success on the players part, or just plain bad dice rolls. The dice can kill you in this game. Of course, in PnP style campaign play raise dead is almost always available, for a price, so individual PC death isn't as big a deal anyway. All you're really trying to avoid is a TPK which tends to be at least immersion breaking if not completely kill the story and game. ALFA is a totally different environment from PnP campaign style.

So in ALFA, where raise dead is only intermittently available at best, PC death falls squarely into the satisfaction of the experience. Folk talk about differences in loot and xp, but personally I think the biggest difference between DM's is whether or not your PC will likely survive multiple sessions. There are so many different styles of DM's in general: The "Gotcha!" style DM's of Jr. High School (who tended to lose their playgroups in PnP), the School Marm style DM's of rabid simulationists, the Daddy Warbucks everyone has whatever they want most, the improvisational laid-back let's just have fun, the obsessively plot driven (who can tell a great story), the subtle facilitator of player stories, etc. All of them are legitimate approaches to the game, it is just a game after all so there is no "right" or "wrong" way, and all have their benefits and detriments. I suppose you could through DM training focus in on a few styles as being "right for ALFA" but boy would that be a big debate.

As for the "one PC" rule and density for that matter, I've said it about thirty times now, but enabling travel allows a player to experience all of ALFA with only one PC. So, to answer Duck's question, the one thing I would sacrifice is "realism in travel times," in order to gain the benefit of "more playing." Having a second PC is far too great a temptation and opportunity for cheating. Investigations and bans would ensue.

I do agree that one PC at a time should include retired PC's. It would create an strong incentive for new low level PC's to be created, and prevent all the cheating / meta issues. Best of all worlds.

As for DM's crossing servers, as long as they stick to simple sessions I don't see the need for deep knowledge of the server or it's PC's. Some things are universal, and a one-shot session with an off server DM is a far cry better than sitting in a tavern with nothing to do. Unless you're an ALFAn, of course.

[Veilan]

I also see some merit in allowing to bring back retired PCs, with proper conditions of course, say, waiting periods, maximum 2 then, etc.. It does however come with its own set of more possible problems and some careful deliberation would be necessary.

I think that's a different horse to beat though .

[Duck One]

In response to Mulu, allowing PC's to liberally travel creates issues for balance for DM's. Say a PC is involved in a campaign that is going to be weeks if not months of reucrring weekly sessions to resolve. What happens when a PC travels and does gaming on other servers in other campaigns? Maybe he gets killed, or gains 2 levels, or has an alignment shift or some significant development that changes how the player would react. Asking one DM to account for these changes after planning the party and capaign can be tricky at best, and impossible at worst.

Forgive me if I'm old school, but I want plots that can be involved and take significant time to conclude, not start and end in one gaming session. Allowing PC's to travel to other servers and be altered by their experiences there creates a continuity issue.

Allowing multiple PC's on different servers gives players the opportunity to experience the variety of experiences that ALFA could offer and utilizing a larger fraction of their gaming time, which would be a big selling point in ALFA's favor. It also frees DM's to weave PC's more strongly into campaigns and gives them better control over the balance of campaign engineering. It also relieves the need for a dedicated portal system between servers as travel would not be necessary except when PC's migrate between campaigns.

You have to weigh the attractiveness of meeting the player's demands and reducing the stress on DM's against the risk of a few bad apples possibly exploiting the situation, and err on the side of those who would play it correctly.

[JaydeMoon]

Old skool = The table, some of your friends, pencil, paper, dice, pizza, and mountain dew.

ALFA = 1 PC and the ability to travel between servers.

Enjoy!

[FanaticusIncendi]

Forgive me if I'm old school, but I want plots that can be involved and take significant time to conclude, not start and end in one gaming session. Allowing PC's to travel to other servers and be altered by their experiences there creates a continuity issue.

This is exactly how I run my plots, the current one has been one big evolution over almost a year. And yeah sorry but I don't want my PCs running amok in every campaign they can manage to get in on over a geographic span of hundreds of miles. It does mess with continuity, and it ends up creating more hassle for me (taking up my limited DM time) and less immersive play for the other PCs in the campaign.

Ultimately it comes down to as a player you need to match yourself and what you want to a DM. If you want to server-hop, or only can only make it to the sessions half the time, obviously I am not the DM for you. Let's not waste each other's time. Figure out your gaming style, be proactive, find a DM who's a match, and stick with that DM. Everyone will be happier in the long run, including and especially you.

[ElCadaver]

I say if people want to get Uber, then let them.... the DM's can deal with it by killing them in uber and fantastic ways. With great power comes great responsibility, and great peril. If you have soo much loot you are a walking fort knox, then you should expect regular attempts by powerful factions to take it or entities to eat your entrails. . In fact, DM's have a responsibility to test if the player has the skill to be worthy of the loot. Put them to the test with trial by fire, regularly. I rejoice in a unique and cool PC death, and remember them all....

We'd actually loose less people that way, as people would be having fun and doing deeds. Also, all the whining rules lawyers would quit when their precious toon died, and the real talent and creativity would stay... VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

*drops two cents in the can*

[MShady]

One of the issues with expecting a player to stay on one server to participate in a plot has to do with how active the DM is. Is it a movie or a series?

If you are participating in an ongoing plot and the DM is around frequently, so are other players between sessions and the server is not dead outside of DM time, its not an issue. A good example of this was Grand Fromage's Shade plot. He was a very active DM, the server was active in between sessions and the environment reflected what was going on. You could be hanging out and he would log in, do a little something and it was great. You'd hang out for hours sometimes, he'd stop by and spice up some ongoing RP or something and it was cool.

There are other examples of good plots like that. Alot really. DMs who only do a session once a week or whatever should expect PCs to travel around. People might want to play more than the 2-3 hours that DM is doing something that week. If the server is empty and there is nothing to do there, people who want to still play have to go elsewhere. Does that make the player bad? No.

DMs should expect and adjust to that and structure things in an episodic format. Do a session and its fairly self contained and taking a break isn't such a huge deal. Some of the more successful campaigns have been like that and in the hall of fame.

This is a persistent world environment too and people may want to play more than that particular DM can support. I have nothing against plots that require a player to stay on a server, more or less, but DMs need to be upfront about that and discuss the campaign with the players. How many OOC discussions really happen about a new campaign and expectations both ways. But its a niche. Some people only play in a DMed campaign and thats all they want to do, but that doesn't make other methods or styles by both DMs and players bad. I can understand issues with immersion. If you're stuck in a dungeon and the session ends half way through, its polite to not play in the meantime. If you're tracking down clues on the whereabouts of the Lucky McGuffin, will going elsewhere for awhile be a huge problem?

There is not alot of difference between a player hanging out on a server for the rest of the week doing nothing or involved in stuff other DMs on the server do and going to another server? People are still playing and perhaps in other campaigns.

ALFA is a multiple server persistent world. The point of having as many servers as we did and hopefully will again was not just to have permanent residents. It was to allow travel to new and different places too. With player density as low as it is, travel is one of the only ways to pull off big events these days.

[Swift]

Considering almost all the servers that are still live are fairly close geographically, it is not so much of a problem, but i had a fundamental issue having to RP in campaigns with players that were making sometimes dayly trips between Norther Cormyr and somewhere like Waterdeep.

I have been rewarded for staying essentially on the one server, despite its slower times, and i feel much better than if i had been traveling all over the place, getting involved in as many DM plots as i could manage.

[ElCadaver]

Considering almost all the servers that are still live are fairly close geographically, it is not so much of a problem, but i had a fundamental issue having to RP in campaigns with players that were making sometimes dayly trips between Norther Cormyr and somewhere like Waterdeep.

I have been rewarded for staying essentially on the one server, despite its slower times, and i feel much better than if i had been traveling all over the place, getting involved in as many DM plots as i could manage.

Thats because the DM's gave you uber stuff....

[MShady]

Travel has its own, different, rewards. It is more a breadth than a depth of experience. Players who stick with one server I have to congratulate and they should get more rewarded as they are more invested. Variety and exploring can be its own reward though. For alot of players, exploring all of the servers was more for the variety. To see things others have not besides the locals etc. There is alot of very cool parts of modules in ALFA and its great for as many people as can manage to see some of it. Its a shame to not see it all.

The point is not so much to get involved in every DM event possible; that's a bad idea. When you're travelling around though, you bump into them and often get recruited by players or DMs just by virtue of being there. You make a choice about your level of involvement with that, do what you can and move on. Do some of the locals resent that? Yes and they should IC. Some folks who show up, help out but can outshine a bit can be really frustrating. And than you're left with problems their presence helped spawn. They may or may not come back. It can be disruptive to ongoing things. Is that a bad thing? It can be. Random variables do happen and can keep things interesting. The key is to be deferential until you have put roots of your own down. Act like a guest, not a resident and things are okay. Of course, sometimes the DMs want one thing and the players don't know so... that can cause frustration.

Everything has its ups and downs...

[psycho_leo]

Do some of the locals resent that? Yes and they should IC. Some folks who show up, help out but can outshine a bit can be really frustrating.

There's little things that can be more frustrating to regular players than this actually. You stick with the server, unravel the plot and then some big time hero shows up from nowhere, defeats the bad guy and rides to the sunset. I made my personal policy to always take a backseat when coming to a new server and getting involved with established plots. I already get to be the star in many of the sessions with my own group, so there's no reason I must have that role in someone else's show.

[Mulu]

In response to Mulu, allowing PC's to liberally travel creates issues for balance for DM's. Say a PC is involved in a campaign that is going to be weeks if not months of reucrring weekly sessions to resolve. What happens when a PC travels and does gaming on other servers in other campaigns?

They rp with other ALFAns. The horror, I know.

Maybe he gets killed, or gains 2 levels, or has an alignment shift or some significant development that changes how the player would react.

All of that could happen without traveling. We don't require people to not play outside of campaign times, except under extreme circumstances like being imprisoned or enslaved.

Forgive me if I'm old school, but I want plots that can be involved and take significant time to conclude, not start and end in one gaming session.

I'm very old school, I played in a four year long campaign in NWC.

Allowing PC's to travel to other servers and be altered by their experiences there creates a continuity issue.

PW's inherently cause campaign continuity issues for the simple reason that people do play outside of their campaigns, and some play more than others.

The only issue with travel is the jealousy of knowing that some players have the time to play in lots of campaigns across many servers. Well, some will play more than others no matter what you do, and DM's certainly have the ability to say, "I know you're already in several campaigns, I'm trying to run something slow leveling for folk who might not have a campaign."

Even the multi-PC limit of one per sever (never gonna happen anyway) allows for muling between PC's. People will do it, and they'll get banned.

[Swift]

Thats because the DM's gave you uber stuff....

My most treasured rewards have all been purely RP rewards

[Veilan]

My most treasured rewards have all been purely RP rewards

Help!

My character is being objectified!