Just wanted to post a bit of an opinion on the new ACTION response for event direction.
Having been at two events now, i caught two sides of it.
One event was smallish, so scroll was at a minimum and things were moving at a easy pace. The screen wasn't full of ATMO or silly "look at me" chatter. So things were moving at a very (to me) manageable pace ( the recent Kra'hei event ). So the ACTION verb seemed to work really well.
While at the other event with the Gorbesh, there was quite alot of people in attendance, that made scroll a bit more of an issue, and maybe because of this, the time between pulses of messaging seemed to be a bit more rushed.
But in terms of the ACTION verb i could not help but assume the the results from the choices from the ACTION was a bit of monkey see monkey do.
Was there maybe not enough time to soak in what was being said? or could it have been slightly difficult to discern what was the options? or the nature of the options?
Rifkinn
LOCUTIS1
DR-KOROR
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/20/2020 04:14 PM CDT
>>LOCUTIS1: While at the other event with the Gorbesh, there was quite alot of people in attendance, that made scroll a bit more of an issue, and maybe because of this, the time between pulses of messaging seemed to be a bit more rushed.
As always with events, the more people in attendance, the harder it is to manage scroll. Other than providing ample time between messages, and bolding the messages we do send, there is little we can do to control everyone in attendance undertaking actions that cause scroll. For the Gorbesh parley event, we spaced and bolded the messaging at significant delays to allow people ample time to read. Once the choices were presented, we did not proceed with the action until a significant majority of people had responded.
With respect to the Kra'hei event, I'll note that a similar "majority vote" was at play, with a contingency that allowed any individual to change the event. With respect that choice in particular, had a single player ADVANCEd on the Matriarch, the entire event would have taken the course of "players choose to attack". Sometimes, the group is responsible for the actions of the individual!
In the Zengmodaleth event, the choices were presented specifically to four people for their participation and organization of the lead ups. Their choices were similarly presented, effectively "LEAN FORWARD" or "POINT UP" or similar commands, to choose between the options presented. As I stated in the last post about this event choice approach we are trying, the choices were not presented at "gotchas," and we tried to be as reasonably clear about what the actions would do. What players chose is up to them.
>>But in terms of the ACTION verb i could not help but assume the the results from the choices from the ACTION was a bit of monkey see monkey do.
When presenting a choice, we provide not only ample time for people to decide, and do not rush the choice, but we also provide second prompts.
This was the first prompt:
(and yes, I see the typo now, which is always the case after the fact)
Veralos continues, "Will you continue, or will you them untangle? If you LEAN FORWARD, you will continue. If you LEAN BACKWARD, this snarl will resolve itself. Choose wisely, and choose now!"
Then approximately 1m later, this was the second prompt:
Veralos repeats, "If you LEAN FORWARD, you will continue. If you LEAN BACKWARD, this snarl will resolve itself. Choose wisely, and choose now!"
There were 40 'LEAN FORWARD' actions performed.
There were 6 'LEAN BACKWARD' actions performed.
There were approximately 50 people in attendance, though the group shifted between the main room and a separate location. Some may have "voted" twice, but this was fairly clearly the choice made by the group.
In the case of the Gorbesh parley event, this was a large group of people gearing for action. The choice was presented to the group as a whole, because this was not an event showcasing the actions or work of a few. In the future when choices are presented to the group as a whole, it may be worthwhile to say out loud what you think should happen before doing it. I'll note that immediately following the consequence of the choice, a number of people in a few different groups immediately began discussing "Why did you all choose what you did?", which led to some interesting conversations.
I'm comfortable revealing that the outcome of the other choice was "the anomaly closes and the mini-invasion does not occur." The outcome for the choice selected was "some of the Gorbesh get through the anomaly and a mini-invasion occurs before it closes." Ultimately, this was intended to showcase some of the effects of interacting with the ongoing events, and livening up your Friday night.
I want to remind those in attendance that events are meant to be fun experiences to showcase the dynamic and evolving game space, both in terms of more activities and things to do, and in terms of lore/story arcs that continue to grow. We enjoy responding to the events and lore and game setting for the same reasons we hope you do - this is a fun world to explore and poke at, and enjoying it together is what makes this game experience a unique one.
As always with events, the more people in attendance, the harder it is to manage scroll. Other than providing ample time between messages, and bolding the messages we do send, there is little we can do to control everyone in attendance undertaking actions that cause scroll. For the Gorbesh parley event, we spaced and bolded the messaging at significant delays to allow people ample time to read. Once the choices were presented, we did not proceed with the action until a significant majority of people had responded.
With respect to the Kra'hei event, I'll note that a similar "majority vote" was at play, with a contingency that allowed any individual to change the event. With respect that choice in particular, had a single player ADVANCEd on the Matriarch, the entire event would have taken the course of "players choose to attack". Sometimes, the group is responsible for the actions of the individual!
In the Zengmodaleth event, the choices were presented specifically to four people for their participation and organization of the lead ups. Their choices were similarly presented, effectively "LEAN FORWARD" or "POINT UP" or similar commands, to choose between the options presented. As I stated in the last post about this event choice approach we are trying, the choices were not presented at "gotchas," and we tried to be as reasonably clear about what the actions would do. What players chose is up to them.
>>But in terms of the ACTION verb i could not help but assume the the results from the choices from the ACTION was a bit of monkey see monkey do.
When presenting a choice, we provide not only ample time for people to decide, and do not rush the choice, but we also provide second prompts.
This was the first prompt:
(and yes, I see the typo now, which is always the case after the fact)
Veralos continues, "Will you continue, or will you them untangle? If you LEAN FORWARD, you will continue. If you LEAN BACKWARD, this snarl will resolve itself. Choose wisely, and choose now!"
Then approximately 1m later, this was the second prompt:
Veralos repeats, "If you LEAN FORWARD, you will continue. If you LEAN BACKWARD, this snarl will resolve itself. Choose wisely, and choose now!"
There were 40 'LEAN FORWARD' actions performed.
There were 6 'LEAN BACKWARD' actions performed.
There were approximately 50 people in attendance, though the group shifted between the main room and a separate location. Some may have "voted" twice, but this was fairly clearly the choice made by the group.
In the case of the Gorbesh parley event, this was a large group of people gearing for action. The choice was presented to the group as a whole, because this was not an event showcasing the actions or work of a few. In the future when choices are presented to the group as a whole, it may be worthwhile to say out loud what you think should happen before doing it. I'll note that immediately following the consequence of the choice, a number of people in a few different groups immediately began discussing "Why did you all choose what you did?", which led to some interesting conversations.
I'm comfortable revealing that the outcome of the other choice was "the anomaly closes and the mini-invasion does not occur." The outcome for the choice selected was "some of the Gorbesh get through the anomaly and a mini-invasion occurs before it closes." Ultimately, this was intended to showcase some of the effects of interacting with the ongoing events, and livening up your Friday night.
I want to remind those in attendance that events are meant to be fun experiences to showcase the dynamic and evolving game space, both in terms of more activities and things to do, and in terms of lore/story arcs that continue to grow. We enjoy responding to the events and lore and game setting for the same reasons we hope you do - this is a fun world to explore and poke at, and enjoying it together is what makes this game experience a unique one.
HASTALUEGO
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/20/2020 05:22 PM CDT
>>With respect to the Kra'hei event, I'll note that a similar "majority vote" was at play, with a contingency that allowed any individual to change the event. With respect that choice in particular, had a single player ADVANCEd on the Matriarch, the entire event would have taken the course of "players choose to attack". Sometimes, the group is responsible for the actions of the individual!
Having seen the last few group effort ACTION choices, I was wondering about how majority vote was working, if at all. Thanks for sharing that.
I do have a question about how that may work with things going forward:
In a lot of cases I think players open up their Events to everyone because there's a known culture of inclusiveness among Event GMs, or a desire to get the "most bang for your buck." Events are a lot of work, and its nice when the maximum amount of people see that work take shape.
However, this also means that in a lot of cases characters trying to do some of these things are basically acting unintelligent. They're inviting a lot of potential chaos or disruption of their goals by not being more selective about who shows up to what. As we now see that other characters most certainly can disrupt those goals, has there been any consideration that players will naturally want their events to be more exclusive? and does staff intend to continue to support those Events if that's the case?
I really love the new ACTIONable events, and I think that having an action for people who want to disrupt things is perfectly fine, but if characters aren't able to really mitigate that then I think that might be a problem.
Having seen the last few group effort ACTION choices, I was wondering about how majority vote was working, if at all. Thanks for sharing that.
I do have a question about how that may work with things going forward:
In a lot of cases I think players open up their Events to everyone because there's a known culture of inclusiveness among Event GMs, or a desire to get the "most bang for your buck." Events are a lot of work, and its nice when the maximum amount of people see that work take shape.
However, this also means that in a lot of cases characters trying to do some of these things are basically acting unintelligent. They're inviting a lot of potential chaos or disruption of their goals by not being more selective about who shows up to what. As we now see that other characters most certainly can disrupt those goals, has there been any consideration that players will naturally want their events to be more exclusive? and does staff intend to continue to support those Events if that's the case?
I really love the new ACTIONable events, and I think that having an action for people who want to disrupt things is perfectly fine, but if characters aren't able to really mitigate that then I think that might be a problem.
DR-KOROR
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/20/2020 10:58 PM CDT
>>HASTALUEGO: Having seen the last few group effort ACTION choices, I was wondering about how majority vote was working, if at all. Thanks for sharing that.
This is going to vary case by case - so far, we have done this a total of four times (that I'm aware of anyway), and are still figuring out how to improve. I have an idea for an event wherein the choice outcome is decided by "majority wins, except for particularly wild choice anyone can perform which causes particularly wild things to happen to everyone and extra particularly wild things to happen to the person performing it".
I will also note I am a personal believer of lasting, significant, impactful consequence for RP choices when appropriate.
>>However, this also means that in a lot of cases characters trying to do some of these things are basically acting unintelligent. They're inviting a lot of potential chaos or disruption of their goals by not being more selective about who shows up to what. As we now see that other characters most certainly can disrupt those goals, has there been any consideration that players will naturally want their events to be more exclusive? and does staff intend to continue to support those Events if that's the case?
We are sort of back at the issue of "how to handle people just being disruptive?", which has always been and likely always will be an issue, and not one with an easy solution, and also, not really unique to events, or even Dragonrealms. I do not have a particularly convenient answer for you here. I hope that people can handle group activities, and participate and conflict like reasonable adults, but I also understand that people want different things both ICly and OOCly. As has always been the case, we respond to events when and how we can, and when appropriate to do so, and this includes events of all ranges of impact and levels of participation. We encourage everyone to remember that this is a multiplayer game, and that your character is part of a dynamic world.
Understand that for events, GMs are watching, and that if someone is being intentionally disruptive, acting outside the bounds of IC participation, we can and will take this into account. If you want to communicate an issue with us, you can OOC to the GMPC present, use MYCHAR, or even REPORT if the situation gets particularly problematic. Also, we of course understand sometimes you quickly type in a choice in the heat of the moment - if you were to say, LEAN FORWARD, and then immediately shout "WAIT NO, I MEANT TO LEAN BACKWARDS!", and do so, we will note that as a "vote for LEAN BACKWARD". Even though the prompt included the phrase "choose quickly!", if you had RP'd out a reason for hesitation, we would have accommodated that within reason. Again, the purpose of the "verb to choose" conceit is to provide you guys a greater ability to dictate the events progress than we had previously been doing, NOT to trick you or ruin the experience.
As always, remember that there are actual people behind the screens playing and GMing this game with you. The point of all this should be to have fun, to share in a group story. If you want to start hosting smaller more private events, feel free to do so, but understand that without notifying us of your plans, it is unlikely we will know your event occurred. Also, per the previous discussion on events, note that if your event amounts to "my friends and I are going to murder Meraud", chances are the outcome of such an event will not be be the death of an Immortal. The two week minimum for calendar entries is to provide players and staff alike ample time to prepare - as you note, events can be a lot of work, both for players to organize, and for us to craft responses. That is not a bad thing - I believe we all enjoy this process and experience - but it does mean we (all of us!) need to be understanding of everyone's time constraints.
PURHEART
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/21/2020 12:53 AM CDT
Ya know, in a way I find it funny that a character who was disruptive (to an outside observer) at a recent event is questioning others choices to RP. And it will be interesting to see how your characters actions affect the outcome from that event, since your character in cold blood murdered another (even if it was a GMC).
Mind you, the S'kra event was put on by a very small group of players, who opened it to non or outside s'kra & rolled with the flow from what I understand. And no, I wasnt there for that either, I had other RL commitments.
The gorbesh event has been in the works for awhile, multiple public meetings were held over it, folks were invited to be at the parlay, even you Rifkinn's player. A joke was actually made at the beginning asking him to not attack the rift/rip/etc.
I had brought several different characters to the public meetings, I wanted to see what was said & how things were evolving.
Yes, I had an issue with the scroll too, I'm sure many did. But I chose to react as I did knowing it might have bad results, or it could have had good ones. Every event that involves folks knowing GMs are involved tends to draw folks, its been that way since almost the beginning of the game. Heck, my characters have died due to scroll which is why I tend to avoid them, I've always had an issue when the text just zooms past on my screen. But when its a "larger" event thats to be expected, thats why I avoided the Orc event outside of attending a few of the war meetings up in Theren or with the Baron about the bridge.
I enjoyed the ending(?) of this event, I will be involving more of my smaller/younger characters now if events will tend to continue this way as I find it more fun/involving. I've always felt that choices made by a few characters in with the GMs (even if they werent it appeared that way to me)or strictly by the gms tended to stifle lower level characters involvement, now even if their choice really didnt affect anything I will still feel like "at least lil folks had input".
Thank you
Mind you, the S'kra event was put on by a very small group of players, who opened it to non or outside s'kra & rolled with the flow from what I understand. And no, I wasnt there for that either, I had other RL commitments.
The gorbesh event has been in the works for awhile, multiple public meetings were held over it, folks were invited to be at the parlay, even you Rifkinn's player. A joke was actually made at the beginning asking him to not attack the rift/rip/etc.
I had brought several different characters to the public meetings, I wanted to see what was said & how things were evolving.
Yes, I had an issue with the scroll too, I'm sure many did. But I chose to react as I did knowing it might have bad results, or it could have had good ones. Every event that involves folks knowing GMs are involved tends to draw folks, its been that way since almost the beginning of the game. Heck, my characters have died due to scroll which is why I tend to avoid them, I've always had an issue when the text just zooms past on my screen. But when its a "larger" event thats to be expected, thats why I avoided the Orc event outside of attending a few of the war meetings up in Theren or with the Baron about the bridge.
I enjoyed the ending(?) of this event, I will be involving more of my smaller/younger characters now if events will tend to continue this way as I find it more fun/involving. I've always felt that choices made by a few characters in with the GMs (even if they werent it appeared that way to me)or strictly by the gms tended to stifle lower level characters involvement, now even if their choice really didnt affect anything I will still feel like "at least lil folks had input".
Thank you
HASTALUEGO
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/21/2020 05:59 AM CDT
>>We are sort of back at the issue of "how to handle people just being disruptive?", which has always been and likely always will be an issue, and not one with an easy solution, and also, not really unique to events, or even Dragonrealms. I do not have a particularly convenient answer for you here
When I mentioned disruption to an Event, I was more referring to perfectly reasonable IC disruption from characters who might be antagonists or just characters with different viewpoints.
Either way it was good to read your thoughts on those issues. Thank you for the response! I'm glad staff is open to communication on these things and I'm looking forward to seeing how the use of ACTIONable events evolves and where the current storylines go. The recent crop of Events over the last 6 months or so have kept me very involved in the game and been a pleasure to take part in. I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.
When I mentioned disruption to an Event, I was more referring to perfectly reasonable IC disruption from characters who might be antagonists or just characters with different viewpoints.
Either way it was good to read your thoughts on those issues. Thank you for the response! I'm glad staff is open to communication on these things and I'm looking forward to seeing how the use of ACTIONable events evolves and where the current storylines go. The recent crop of Events over the last 6 months or so have kept me very involved in the game and been a pleasure to take part in. I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.
SAUVA
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/21/2020 08:49 AM CDT
>The recent crop of Events over the last 6 months or so have kept me very involved in the game and been a pleasure to take part in. I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.
The open dialog here on the forums, inventiveness in bringing a new mechanic into events, and interest in spicing up player initiated events, makes me very happy and excited to see where storytelling will go with this current crop of GMs. Also shout-out to players who are organizing events, making sure folks IG know about them, and making sure that GMs do too.
~Hunter Hanryu
>I would like to avoid the collection of broken dreams and sorrow that is the Ranger guild.~Agalea
The open dialog here on the forums, inventiveness in bringing a new mechanic into events, and interest in spicing up player initiated events, makes me very happy and excited to see where storytelling will go with this current crop of GMs. Also shout-out to players who are organizing events, making sure folks IG know about them, and making sure that GMs do too.
~Hunter Hanryu
>I would like to avoid the collection of broken dreams and sorrow that is the Ranger guild.~Agalea
PRIMEQ
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/22/2020 02:34 AM CDT
>>The recent crop of Events over the last 6 months or so have kept me very involved in the game and been a pleasure to take part in. I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.
Completely agree. It's been wild and crazy fun. I've loved the greater agency, the open forum discussions, the real chance of blowing things up or things not going our way, pretty much everything. It's honestly made the past 6 months my favorite time in DR. :)
>>When I mentioned disruption to an Event, I was more referring to perfectly reasonable IC disruption from characters who might be antagonists or just characters with different viewpoints.
I have to agree that, if it happens that a single bad actor can ICly disrupt an event, I will probably feel like I have to alter Navesi's events to try to ICly cut out those actors, and things will be far less inclusive. Right now I try to be as inclusive as possible, save open Necromancers. Now, maybe in this brave new world we will have room for smaller events and more secrecy. I just want you, the GMs, to be aware that this is the road we're taking.
To try to explain a bit more, let's say Navesi is hosting a delicate tea ritual and invites everyone. Bad Guy shows up and smashes the tea set as she is trying to achieve enlightenment. If Navesi keeps doing the same thing, well, it's just a failure to learn on her part, and in the future she might try to host her tea rituals in a more private setting. I'm not necessarily unhappy with this development, just noting that it would involve fewer people. Maybe there's a compromise to be had somewhere, where concerted effort by Bad Guys can be rewarded by foiling the Good Guys' plan (or vice versa), but it's not just a "show up and make a single disruptive choice" thing.
Another idea. To use your example of advancing as the "single disruptive choice," maybe when that choice is made, the others can be given a second choice about possibly stopping the disruptor. E.g. people would get a message about how this is enraging the creature, then be given the option to step in front of the advancer (action choice), and/or be encouraged to find another roleplaying way to get involved (sometimes with the action choices it can seem like they are the "only way"). This might prompt someone to think of dragging the person away, or apologizing profusely, or guarding the creature, etc. In this way maybe we could stop one or two disruptors, but not a lot of them.
Ultimately though, big thumbs up on thinking outside the box, coming up with new and exciting challenges. I figure we're all learning together.
- Navesi
The First Land Herald -- Zoluren's newspaper. https://elanthipedia.play.net/The_First_Land_Herald
Completely agree. It's been wild and crazy fun. I've loved the greater agency, the open forum discussions, the real chance of blowing things up or things not going our way, pretty much everything. It's honestly made the past 6 months my favorite time in DR. :)
>>When I mentioned disruption to an Event, I was more referring to perfectly reasonable IC disruption from characters who might be antagonists or just characters with different viewpoints.
I have to agree that, if it happens that a single bad actor can ICly disrupt an event, I will probably feel like I have to alter Navesi's events to try to ICly cut out those actors, and things will be far less inclusive. Right now I try to be as inclusive as possible, save open Necromancers. Now, maybe in this brave new world we will have room for smaller events and more secrecy. I just want you, the GMs, to be aware that this is the road we're taking.
To try to explain a bit more, let's say Navesi is hosting a delicate tea ritual and invites everyone. Bad Guy shows up and smashes the tea set as she is trying to achieve enlightenment. If Navesi keeps doing the same thing, well, it's just a failure to learn on her part, and in the future she might try to host her tea rituals in a more private setting. I'm not necessarily unhappy with this development, just noting that it would involve fewer people. Maybe there's a compromise to be had somewhere, where concerted effort by Bad Guys can be rewarded by foiling the Good Guys' plan (or vice versa), but it's not just a "show up and make a single disruptive choice" thing.
Another idea. To use your example of advancing as the "single disruptive choice," maybe when that choice is made, the others can be given a second choice about possibly stopping the disruptor. E.g. people would get a message about how this is enraging the creature, then be given the option to step in front of the advancer (action choice), and/or be encouraged to find another roleplaying way to get involved (sometimes with the action choices it can seem like they are the "only way"). This might prompt someone to think of dragging the person away, or apologizing profusely, or guarding the creature, etc. In this way maybe we could stop one or two disruptors, but not a lot of them.
Ultimately though, big thumbs up on thinking outside the box, coming up with new and exciting challenges. I figure we're all learning together.
- Navesi
The First Land Herald -- Zoluren's newspaper. https://elanthipedia.play.net/The_First_Land_Herald
SARAGOS
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/22/2020 02:41 AM CDT
Koror,
I think the new event mechanics are awesome. While I know that players influenced the course of events before these mechanics were used, it sure is awesome to feel that sense of agency and to know that you helped to make the choice, to shape what was happening. It gives a sense of ownership over the consequences. I really can't say enough good things about it. I'm really happy you're talking openly with us about it as well.
But I do get HASTALUEGO's concerns, and I think they can be addressed pretty simply on your end by being a bit more forgiving on the outcomes when the groups get larger. The issue isn't so much people being OOC disruptive as it is that I don't think we want to create a counterincentive to good eventing. Let me give a hypothetical example.
Let's say that Drogor is sending flying sharks again to eat people, but we don't know why. We'd like to organize a ritual where we try to be conciliatory and ask Drogor what the problem is.
There are lots of people who would have IC reasons for disrupting the events. Necromancers, certainly. But also other characters who are fed up with the Dark Aspects. Maybe even characters who follow the Dark Aspects who think that people haven't paid enough for their complacency. These are all good, real IC reasons why when the time comes to either kneel before the altar or turn your back to it, these people would refuse.
Now, my character knows this. For best chances of success, he'd probably want to just invite people who he knows are sympathetic to the aims of the event. But I have him play dumb a bit, and invite everyone, put it on the calendar, talk it up wherever people will read. Why? Because it's better for RP in the game if we're not just roleplaying within our own cadre of friends and branching out - it makes for more interesting situations and a more healthy RP culture. And also, frankly, there's the real perception that we're more likely to get GM intervention with more people present.
This can already be stressful at times. It was a stressful element to try to make sure that people behaved during the Zengmodaleth event. I really want to try to be as inclusive as possible, and so I'd like to not have an extra weight pushing towards being exclusionary - the weight that if one person does the wrong thing, that all our work gets borked. A little bit of extra leeway for large groups, when event organizers have made the effort to be inclusive, would help to lighten that stress level.
Does that make sense?
- Saragos
I think the new event mechanics are awesome. While I know that players influenced the course of events before these mechanics were used, it sure is awesome to feel that sense of agency and to know that you helped to make the choice, to shape what was happening. It gives a sense of ownership over the consequences. I really can't say enough good things about it. I'm really happy you're talking openly with us about it as well.
But I do get HASTALUEGO's concerns, and I think they can be addressed pretty simply on your end by being a bit more forgiving on the outcomes when the groups get larger. The issue isn't so much people being OOC disruptive as it is that I don't think we want to create a counterincentive to good eventing. Let me give a hypothetical example.
Let's say that Drogor is sending flying sharks again to eat people, but we don't know why. We'd like to organize a ritual where we try to be conciliatory and ask Drogor what the problem is.
There are lots of people who would have IC reasons for disrupting the events. Necromancers, certainly. But also other characters who are fed up with the Dark Aspects. Maybe even characters who follow the Dark Aspects who think that people haven't paid enough for their complacency. These are all good, real IC reasons why when the time comes to either kneel before the altar or turn your back to it, these people would refuse.
Now, my character knows this. For best chances of success, he'd probably want to just invite people who he knows are sympathetic to the aims of the event. But I have him play dumb a bit, and invite everyone, put it on the calendar, talk it up wherever people will read. Why? Because it's better for RP in the game if we're not just roleplaying within our own cadre of friends and branching out - it makes for more interesting situations and a more healthy RP culture. And also, frankly, there's the real perception that we're more likely to get GM intervention with more people present.
This can already be stressful at times. It was a stressful element to try to make sure that people behaved during the Zengmodaleth event. I really want to try to be as inclusive as possible, and so I'd like to not have an extra weight pushing towards being exclusionary - the weight that if one person does the wrong thing, that all our work gets borked. A little bit of extra leeway for large groups, when event organizers have made the effort to be inclusive, would help to lighten that stress level.
Does that make sense?
- Saragos
DR-KOROR
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/22/2020 08:51 AM CDT
To start, I need to say that I completely understand this concern. It is entirely valid - if you put in the effort to do TheThing, and you put in the effort to prepare for TheThing, and talk to people about TheThing, and invite people to do TheThing with you, it would be really upsetting if a handful of people showed up and just wanted to see what would happen if TheThing went horribly horribly wrong and disrupted it.
Understand that GMs working on events do so because we enjoyed events as players, and like hearing and telling stories. We want to see these stories developed and grow, but most importantly, enjoyed by the players we are telling these stories to and with. We all have our own quirks when doing events, but none of us are simply showing up, running a script, and coming back an hour later to read the logs. We have talked about how events can be a lot of work to prepare, but they can also be a lot of work to execute as we edit or craft stuff on the fly (you are likely acutely aware of my on the fly edits, typos be damned). Mind you, this is not me complaining about how hard things are - I find this to be a lot of fun!
The reason I say this is to reassure you that while it would of course be understandable to host smaller events to avoid disruption, you should also know that we will likely respond to people we believe to be intentionally disruptive accordingly.
Take for example SARAGOS' aforementioned Drogor Appeasement Event - if you will recall from the last Drogor Appeasement Event, we responded to a Necromancer offering material on the altar in a very specific way, specifically, by exploding that Necromancer. This is not to say that the Necromancer in question was being disruptive, but rather, that we would not take one person doing a thing IC for them as grounds to destroy the event. Or even, again, not in the case of this particular Necromancer, someone being intentionally OOCly disruptive as grounds to invalidate an event. Remember, Drogor was appeased. So, in this hypothetical future event, say the organizers call on everyone to kneel, and a handful of people decide to stand and spit on the ground. Rest assured, Drogor will notice those who kneel, and those who stand and spit on the ground will be "dealt with".
The choice by verb approach is just one of the tools we hope to utilize to better engagement. It is not the only way we will have events progress, and it is not an automated tool - we are posing the choice, and then reading the responses, and responding with the outcome. There are pros and cons to consider for each approach - majority vote lets everyone participate, but means everyone is participating. Presenting choice to a few people means they dictate the events outcome, but that everyone else is a spectator. I think there is room for both. Also note that not everyone shares logs! Sometimes that can make it confusing for spectators to understand what happened or why.
Remember that people have always complained about "event chasing" - people seem to delight in gwething challenges to Kssarh in hopes of getting smashed, etc. There have always been people who want to see something happen, and seek that something in the form of poking the bear. Sometimes poking the bear can result in a lot of fun - Necromancers have a lot of experience with the horrible things Demons do as a result of continually seeking them, Traders and Moon Mages are learning all kinds of horrible things about the forces they play with by pushing those limits, and indeed, the Zengmodaleth release slotted perfectly into the Elemental Experimentation line of player run events, experiments that were so pokey, they poked not one, but two holes in reality itself.
I think I am starting to lose the thread here, but what I am trying to say is that your concern about inclusivity in the face of participant disruption is valid, and something we are aware of, and something we would consider with our responses. If four Elemental Researchers are gathered to complete an experiment, a few people throwing water balls at the crackling sphere of Electricity with a capital E are not going lead to failure. At least not for the Researchers.
Understand that GMs working on events do so because we enjoyed events as players, and like hearing and telling stories. We want to see these stories developed and grow, but most importantly, enjoyed by the players we are telling these stories to and with. We all have our own quirks when doing events, but none of us are simply showing up, running a script, and coming back an hour later to read the logs. We have talked about how events can be a lot of work to prepare, but they can also be a lot of work to execute as we edit or craft stuff on the fly (you are likely acutely aware of my on the fly edits, typos be damned). Mind you, this is not me complaining about how hard things are - I find this to be a lot of fun!
The reason I say this is to reassure you that while it would of course be understandable to host smaller events to avoid disruption, you should also know that we will likely respond to people we believe to be intentionally disruptive accordingly.
Take for example SARAGOS' aforementioned Drogor Appeasement Event - if you will recall from the last Drogor Appeasement Event, we responded to a Necromancer offering material on the altar in a very specific way, specifically, by exploding that Necromancer. This is not to say that the Necromancer in question was being disruptive, but rather, that we would not take one person doing a thing IC for them as grounds to destroy the event. Or even, again, not in the case of this particular Necromancer, someone being intentionally OOCly disruptive as grounds to invalidate an event. Remember, Drogor was appeased. So, in this hypothetical future event, say the organizers call on everyone to kneel, and a handful of people decide to stand and spit on the ground. Rest assured, Drogor will notice those who kneel, and those who stand and spit on the ground will be "dealt with".
The choice by verb approach is just one of the tools we hope to utilize to better engagement. It is not the only way we will have events progress, and it is not an automated tool - we are posing the choice, and then reading the responses, and responding with the outcome. There are pros and cons to consider for each approach - majority vote lets everyone participate, but means everyone is participating. Presenting choice to a few people means they dictate the events outcome, but that everyone else is a spectator. I think there is room for both. Also note that not everyone shares logs! Sometimes that can make it confusing for spectators to understand what happened or why.
Remember that people have always complained about "event chasing" - people seem to delight in gwething challenges to Kssarh in hopes of getting smashed, etc. There have always been people who want to see something happen, and seek that something in the form of poking the bear. Sometimes poking the bear can result in a lot of fun - Necromancers have a lot of experience with the horrible things Demons do as a result of continually seeking them, Traders and Moon Mages are learning all kinds of horrible things about the forces they play with by pushing those limits, and indeed, the Zengmodaleth release slotted perfectly into the Elemental Experimentation line of player run events, experiments that were so pokey, they poked not one, but two holes in reality itself.
I think I am starting to lose the thread here, but what I am trying to say is that your concern about inclusivity in the face of participant disruption is valid, and something we are aware of, and something we would consider with our responses. If four Elemental Researchers are gathered to complete an experiment, a few people throwing water balls at the crackling sphere of Electricity with a capital E are not going lead to failure. At least not for the Researchers.
SARAGOS
Re: New action verbs for events.
06/22/2020 04:13 PM CDT
That eases my mind to hear you put it that way, because that's a good way to approach it. I had actually forgotten about the Necromancer offering at that actual Drogor event until you mentioned it, but I liked how that was handled. That's an example of IC disruption that I really enjoy and find adds to everyone's enjoyment, and I don't want to see that lost.
I think you've allayed my concerns here. It's exciting to see so many events happening, and I've never seen so much GM involvement in player-run initiatives. THIS is the kind of thing that's the real draw of DR. Thanks for both the response and the work you and others have put in.
- Saragos
I think you've allayed my concerns here. It's exciting to see so many events happening, and I've never seen so much GM involvement in player-run initiatives. THIS is the kind of thing that's the real draw of DR. Thanks for both the response and the work you and others have put in.
- Saragos
