The NWN1 platform - changing customs and rules

[zicada]

One could argue this means 59% don't really care one way or the other / aren't interested enough to vote I would say.

[Rusty]

I'll happily have PCs in my campaign who have other PCs elsewhere, with the proviso that my campaign session take precedence over the rest of their life. But - don't present this as the solution to NWN1 ALFA's woes. It ain't. It's a way for 20 people to play more and have more fun. Which is A Good Thing; but, a Different Thing.

[Nalo Jade]

20 people to have more fun, 1 person to return to playing, more DM coverage and I will bet dollars to donuts that...We can get more people to join/return to ALFA based on joining campaigns and then let them know BTW you may make up an ad-hoc PC as well for play between campaign sessions.

Rusty I don't think this one movement will fix all the woes...but it will have a significantly positive effect.

[Brokenbone]

True enough, these sorts of ideas probably help retention of existing as opposed to attracting new, but might still spark at least a little interest, such as joining a campaign and knowing that if your PC gets deaded, they can reasonably reintegrate as a junior, but not "too junior" comrade.

Now what about unretiring characters? Ha ha, just kidding. Or am I? It's the natural extension of permitting more than one PC. You've got one "on ice" in retirement, and another one, who possibly is strutting around ALFA even now! They are allowed to exist in the same world at the same time all of a sudden, so, why not? Subject to maybe making sure the character sheet is "clean", like not littered with wacko artifacts and an 18 for every ability score (perhaps to keep it fair, reintroduce them to the world with 100% average wealth, whether they were above or below that at time of retirement, if they have some overpowered high cost sentimental items, might mean they keep them but are bareass naked on all other gear), and go from there... as always, subject to DM approval. Note I have no retired PCs (got dead ones instead), so I do not stand to personally benefit here... but maybe it's an irresistible lure to some old blood or other out there.

[JaydeMoon]

One could argue this means 59% don't really care one way or the other / aren't interested enough to vote I would say.

I concede this point, one of the things I thought I was trying to point out myself, but I may have missed that mark.

However... what does that mean, if they don't really care or aren't interested enough to vote?

But - don't present this as the solution to NWN1 ALFA's woes. It ain't. It's a way for 20 people to play more and have more fun. Which is A Good Thing; but, a Different Thing.

This is very true. It is, i believe one of the points in the big thingiemabobber FI wrote.

That is to say that it is somewhat foolish to believe that ALFA1 can ever be what it was, it has, in fact, become a Different Thing.

Regarding that Different Thing, how can we make it more of a Good Thing?

However, if anyone has the solution to NWN1 ALFA's woes, a way to make it the Same Thing that it was back then, which was a REALLY Good Thing... I'd be all for it.

I am hopeless that it can ever be, however.

Now what about unretiring characters? Ha ha, just kidding. Or am I? It's the natural extension of permitting more than one PC. You've got one "on ice" in retirement, and another one, who possibly is strutting around ALFA even now! They are allowed to exist in the same world at the same time all of a sudden, so, why not? Subject to maybe making sure the character sheet is "clean", like not littered with wacko artifacts and an 18 for every ability score (perhaps to keep it fair, reintroduce them to the world with 100% average wealth, whether they were above or below that at time of retirement, if they have some overpowered high cost sentimental items, might mean they keep them but are bareass naked on all other gear), and go from there... as always, subject to DM approval. Note I have no retired PCs (got dead ones instead), so I do not stand to personally benefit here... but maybe it's an irresistible lure to some old blood or other out there.

Were it possible, I would say 'yes', utilizing whatever rules we hypothetically come up with for 'Multiple PCs' and 'Start above Level 1'.

Issue, vault clearances. Not all retired PCs still exist in a non-compromised environment (ie the Vault)

[NickD]

I would be extremely pissed off if I returned with my 12th level character to be CvCed by a 15th level who got made the day before.

I could, however, accept the concept of multiple characters of any level being made by local DMs for campaigns only. But then is it really still ALFA? Why not in those cases just run a copy of the server separately at the set times? How would it be different?

At the very least, should this be allowed, these characters should be forbidden from participating in any form of CvC.

[hollyfant]

But then is it really still ALFA?

No. But the current situation isn't either. We're faced with a handful of campaign servers, sharing rules and a vault for no good reason.

What I'm missing sofar in the discussion, is the question whether any of the proposed changes will draw in new players, either from NWN 2 or outside of ALFA. Getting the people we have to play more is good. Getting more people to play more would be better.

(Oh, and you can take me off the list of people that do play NWN 1 ALFA. I gave up.)

[Rusty]

CvC requires a DM. DMs stop unretired PCs or campaign PCs killing others. No problem.

[NickD]

Some time ago, a certain ex-TLR DM and I had a falling out. When I went to another server where he was a player, his character talked about how much he enjoyed killing halflings in front of mine just because he knew I would be unable to do anything about it on that server.

I would not like to see that kind of behaviour, either. Perhaps it's not killing, but it's still quasi-CvC.

[FanaticusIncendi]

What I'm missing sofar in the discussion, is the question whether any of the proposed changes will draw in new players, either from NWN 2 or outside of ALFA. Getting the people we have to play more is good. Getting more people to play more would be better.

It's a step in that direction.

If we allow DMs to DM on a server they play on (and note I clearly stated in my original proposal that this would be on a case by case basis determined through joint agreement between DMA and PA) then, well, we might actually have a few more DMs.

If you DM it, they will come.

I am absolutely against attempting to draw in new players when there is nothing for them to do and no one to DM them. Someone either has to institute A LOT of static quests, or we need to have more DMs for them. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to attract new players only to have them download the haks, log in, and sit on an empty server because all the campaigns are full and no one plays or DMs outside their campaign times. In RL business when you have a dissatisfied customer, the majority of the time they will quietly stop being your customer and then go tell 10 of their friends why your services sucked. I doubt the internet game world is much different, as people are people.

I've no interest in putting the cart before the horse. My focus is on figuring out a way to enliven the community and servers we already have. One of the ways to do this is to allow people to DM where they play. One of the main things that makes ALFA special is the DMage. It's hard to get personalized DMage on other PWs- I've tried. This is our strong point and we need to focus on it if we want more players.

We do not have enough active DMs at the moment to accomplish this.

I have, over the last year, tried to recruit DMs. Few want the job and the ones who step up for it usually don't last long. DMing well is not simple, learning the servers can be daunting, and TBH some of the PCs who've been around a long time don't make it easy on new DMs just learning the ropes and trying to do the best they can. All are reasons why people don't want the job or don't stick with it.

The perfect solution would be if we simply had more DMs. But we don't. The second perfect solution would be if we had more players from which to cultivate DMs from...but in order to adequately support new players we need...more DMs! Giving some flexibility in playing/DMing might just help this. Anything is better than nothing.

As for multiple PCs, I have one good example of how allowing them might enliven our servers: there are 7 of us ALFA people currently playing in a group on another PW. If we could all have a second PC, we'd likely be playing in ALFA, instead.

As for higher starting levels, I have lost two players who started in my established campaign only to quit, not because they were afraid they were going to die but because they didn't want to play second fiddle to older, established PCs. Now, my personal feeling on this is that "second fiddle" is a matter of perspective and how creative you can be in crafting a PC who has something that the other members of the group do not... but that's a digression of the main point which is regardless that I personally feel the reason is nonsense, the player feels that way and I have to respect the player's feelings. So I lose players. Which sucks. And is not fun.

If my players don't mind someone starting at a higher level than it should be a non-issue. Are we really so petty that we're going to whine and say "No fair! He got to start at a higher level than me!" Silly. I might concede the point on the CvC if it were an issue in ALFA but as Rusty succinctly pointed out, you have to have a DM present for that in ALFA. In this situation if all parties aren't OK with it then no CvC. Done. (as an aside I haven't seen a case of CvC in ALFA since the time I had a player who wanted to oust his own PC instead of retiring so I ran a session where an assassin PC was hired to do the deed. That was 2 years ago)

So...yeah. Perspective.

[Nalo Jade]

@ concerns of change ...

The proposed changes do not make being a jerk more likely...if you are a jerk you will be a jerk regardless what the rules are.

I don't think anyone is proposing any amendment that will make a non-jerk become a jerk.

imo the summation of the proposal is: Lets not keep rules designed to reign in jerks on the good standing trustworthy members.

Lets just Ban jerks when we find em.

@ Enlivening the servers. I have 10-13 Players in the campaign I am running I am sure if a few of them could have a second PC they would start playing ad-hoc, and if they played ad-hoc and added in the 7 FI speaks of, maybe NC would start being a "hopping" place to be which may draw in some members that haven't played in a while ... and if we could force ... er convince some of them to help out with DMing ... mwhahaha

[Rusty]

Some time ago, a certain ex-TLR DM and I had a falling out. When I went to another server where he was a player, his character talked about how much he enjoyed killing halflings in front of mine just because he knew I would be unable to do anything about it on that server.

I'd just like to say that I'm infinitely chuffed that this isn't me.

[Brokenbone]

Uh, everyone likes killing halflings. Narrow it down a little!

[alynnrobinso]

Hey Jayde, add me to your list...currently inactive due to busted computer. Once fixed, I'll be active again.


Question...If DMs are allowed to play on the server they DM on with HDM permission, what about the HDMs who want to play too? Who's giving them permission? Do they need permission?

I'm in favor of start from 1st - 3rd, with any higher lvls being approved by DM. I like the campaign only idea, but I think it would be nice to have a PW character start higher, with appropriate safeguards. What if you've got a character idea whose background requires you to start at 4th or 5th? Should they be DM approved, with possibly posting on the DM/HDM forum so DMs are aware of them? That way, if someone comes up for CvC or griefing, the DMs can see that the character was a higher start. Is that worth it, or too much work?

Multiple characters are a good thing, but should be limited, I agree. A second or third max should be plenty. Do we want to cap it?

[Zelknolf]

Question...If DMs are allowed to play on the server they DM on with HDM permission, what about the HDMs who want to play too? Who's giving them permission? Do they need permission?

A suggestion... EADM? DMA? I prolly wouldn't want to pimpslap ayergo with more work, but we could get someone to work as a check against the (slim) potential of abuse.

But tbh, I don't think our current HDMs would really want to play. Chamu, Lego, and Vald are very big into the DMing, and I think Vald is the only one who officially has a character (Yakuut the barbarian? Pretty sure that fellow is on NC playing once every blue moon). My potential HDM position probably wouldn't include a "play here too" clause for myself. I suppose that if the current DM were to move her sessions to WD and I was allowed to delegate the authority, I'd give her the ability to make the "you're doing it wrong - plz gtfo and dun let the door hit ya" call.

I'm in favor of start from 1st - 3rd, with any higher lvls being approved by DM. I like the campaign only idea, but I think it would be nice to have a PW character start higher, with appropriate safeguards. What if you've got a character idea whose background requires you to start at 4th or 5th? Should they be DM approved, with possibly posting on the DM/HDM forum so DMs are aware of them? That way, if someone comes up for CvC or griefing, the DMs can see that the character was a higher start. Is that worth it, or too much work?

Another somewhat random idea. Maybe no CvC for the first year? Six months? Make sure that the fellows get invested enough in their characters that they would care if they lost 'em. It would at least help even the grounds on the emotional attachment. Not perfectly, but I'd bet enough to make the occurances as rare as CvC currently is.

Multiple characters are a good thing, but should be limited, I agree. A second or third max should be plenty. Do we want to cap it?

I've already chopped up the post! Must answer! Eeeeeeep!

*coughem* More to the point, most PWs I've seen with multiple characters allowed, the good RPers have a "main" and one or two "alts" -- cap of 3 would probably make those sorts happy. Cap of 2 probably would, too, but I'd expect to see a high turnover on those alts if we did that. I say this, of course, in the context that if we do go with some kind of campaign PC solution (wherein regular play is restricted due to rolling up an advanced-level PC, but they may participate freely in a campaign that would squash a newbie), that those PCs shouldn't count toward the cap. It'd be a lot of bookkeeping to enforce, being that the servers I've seen/heard of struggle to get their DMs to post plot updates, but it's a thought.