[Poll] Header Plot and Issues - Take 2

[Kinaed]

I met privately with the player behind Civatta to discuss the previous forum post and to crystallize the list of items that need to be addressed. I am hopeful that we as a collective can try again with a focus on problem solving sans mud slinging.

Here is the list of issues that we came up with together:

- Many of the GLs and people in highly politicized positions like knights, inquisitors, and civil servants feel a lack of agency in the world and affecting kingdom politics.

A potential solution would have to find a middle ground between that level of broad abstraction and that responsiveness from that layer that seems like it should be doing things or at least actively listening is perhaps a helpful demand?

- With regards to the current header and earlier related ones, it can feel impossible to get a positive response to plots or plans. The situation feels as if the deck is stacked to neutral or outright negative. When responding to a plot quest, it's really hard to figure out what these abstract entities actually want or care about, so players are stuck throwing things at them to see what sticks.

- It's frustrating trying to rope anyone into certain header plots because every NPC seems to be infuriatingly neutral. If you try to find a tailor made PC and their NPC family with a place in this world in relation to the plot header, you start hitting brick walls and having trouble finding reason to continue.

For anyone willing to continue to participate, are there solutions or things people think might improve the system? Also, do you think the plot system is a net value-add or negative for the game?

On politeness: Please avoid commentary that is judgemental of others or speaks for their motivations. Thanks!

[Satoshi]

I voted 'yes' on the plot system adding more value to the game, simply because I feel like as a system itself, it adds a lot to the game--a way to do what would be realistic but impossible to codedly do. Without being able to perform investigations for various information that you might not be able to get (bad playtime, information you cannot just ask another PC for or do not have access to, knights/reeves investigating crimes, etc) it adds a lot of possibility to the game and more than just RPing without any way to interact with staff for information. Having played in an RP game where staff did not allow us to interact with the world in any sort of way, but expected us to RP like we could regardless, it is very nice being able to have that possiblility, and it makes planning in the game actually feel good.

I feel like, just off of Temi's response in the previous thread, that... maybe too much emphasis is being placed on 'neutral and opposing' responses for drama's sake, without enough... included hooks to pursue a correct answer? I know that the plot system can be a discussion between staff and characters for a goal, not just a one-shot spending of resources and gold. Perhaps instead of just answering with a direct answer to the goal, add a hook for a lesser success chance to the staff response to see if players want to pursue.

Example: Theodora being unable to get the Vandagan Court Bard to respond to her. Instead of that being the only response, perhaps add in 'but someone else might be willing to' that the player could update their action to pursue for a lesser return. If the goal was knowledge from the Court Bard, maybe an Apprentice is willing to give some information, but they can't influence nobles because they are only an apprentice. Maybe a Bard is willing to help, but demands being promoted to Master Bard for the trouble.

Temi was rather adamant about there being no success without a sacrifice--I think that is very admirable and sticks well with Staff's attempts to stay very neutral and fair in all their interactions with players. But I am unsure what she considers a sacrifice--or whether it agrees with players. I would consider losing some gold, the time it took to plan something meticulously, and the risk of doing a thing, or giving up perceived power is a sacrifice, of a sort. Letting a Bard demand their promotion in exchange for information might put you vulnerable to being manipulated by that Bard. Having an Apprentice give you information risks it being incomplete or having them caught. It's possible your informant is even compromised and the Duchess now knows everything they just told you and may be laying a trap.

To my understanding, you can only do 1 free plot against the header an irl week, so maybe just ending with a 'you failed, but there's still a possibility' could give a possible plan to future plots? An irl week is an IC month, so that seems like a good tradeoff for combating feeling utterly ineffective.

'Yes, and' is a good improvisational and roleplay tool, but not always possible to do in larger plots. But I believe that 'No, but' is also a great tool that might combat player frustration with minimal addition to staff fatigue and demand on staff's time.

[galaxgal]

I feel like -- the purpose of these seasonal headers is to get players interacting and having conflicts with each other IC but because the characters who oppose Roland are so entrenched and powerful there isn't a rational on-grid course of action for a PC left other than to go along with trying to defeat him, which means the only real interaction we're getting that moves things forward is with off-grid, abstract NPCs.

Addressing the individual plot responses rather than the high reliance on the system itself misses the forest for the trees here: I sincerely don't feel the plot system was made or designed to be the dependent factor of play or the main means of interaction with 'what is going on', but it has, due to the unforseen levels of player unanimity in the ongoing metaplot conflict.

I do also feel like -- if this is where we are now, though, there is a disconnect in what the PC side of this situation gauges as a 'cost'. People seem very willing to hurl their IP and QP at the wall to try and deal with this and consider that the cost; but there has been a deep and ongoing aversion to courses of action that, for instance, involve ethical or moral compromise, or might somehow provoke danger.

Granted, I think that part of the problem here is that it's really difficult to gauge the actual cost or risk levels of many actions --- we have only really seen the extreme ends of the spectrum (extreme danger, low chance of extreme reward -- low danger, high chance of little or no reward).

[Yinadele]

I agree with Satoshi's post, and since talking to Temi and Niamh, I feel pretty relieved and good. I think also another thing is that players need to reach out for clarity rather than getting quiet and frustrated- This topic ended up feeling intense because a lot of small things piled up, and we can all do better on the future. STs need to feel loved and appreciated, and good feedback is probably hard for Staff to find.

'Yes, and' is a good improvisational and roleplay tool, but not always possible to do in larger plots. But I believe that 'No, but' is also a great tool that might combat player frustration with minimal addition to staff fatigue and demand on staff's time.

I truly feel this is the best summary for staff on player burnout with the plot system. People need hooks to jab them in the eyes sometimes, is all I feel is important to add. A null state failure is much less interesting than 'succeeds with complications', 'here's a show of what did turn out positive even if it didn't turn out as expected', or 'requires a complication to be accepted to succeed' as per Satoshi's example.

I think Roland fatigue has less to do with Roland himself than a lot of the communication breakdown and outcomes which has surrounded it.


I feel pretty content after talking with Temi, however, and I feel like if we all just sit down and talk about things and have fun together, everything can and will be chill.

I do not think the plot system needs removed, even if maybe we could add to the POLCA; Splitting OOC goal into a separate field from IC actions. I think it'd help players in their writing, and avoid misinterpretation or overly focusing on one or the other.

I'm going to do my best to try to include more characters in Plots and to extend this header past the upper political circle, and I've already started IC. I'd like to thank Temi for her replies to me, and +1 her coolness.

[Whateverosaur]

Hello, friendly neighborhood Seneschal here.

I am so happy with the idea of plots. Affecting the world on a grand scale is a really cool idea. I am also heavily discouraged by the responses I've received from plots and the general sense of failure and powerlessness I've experienced. It creates an environment where I feel so much of my time as Sibylle is spent fielding bad news, coming up with answers to bad news, organizing task forces to solve bad news, and ultimately making things worse for having ever been involved. I feel demoralized honestly.

Temi's answer in the other thread is complete news to me, and I really really appreciate her having taken the time to explain her philosophy behind all of the answers she also took so much time to come up with. Having someone field these plots is the last thing I want to argue that we should be getting rid of. I just do not feel good or powerful or effective, and I have held onto a lot of these feelings for being seen as a whiner or ungrateful.

Ultimately I think a conversation between Temi and me might be helpful to alleviate some of these concerns and see where we can go from here. I appreciate the IC morale support from those of you that I've gotten involved on this. I think Satoshi makes a good point above where he talks about how much attention has been paid to emphasizing drama through neutral or contrary event postings, and in the other thread about Roland's seeming plot armor. There are some finer thoughts I could break down here on the forums (I've only rewritten this about five times today), or if Temi/staff are interested, privately over Discord.

[Temi]

Ultimately I think a conversation between Temi and me might be helpful to alleviate some of these concerns and see where we can go from here. I appreciate the IC morale support from those of you that I've gotten involved on this. I think Satoshi makes a good point above where he talks about how much attention has been paid to emphasizing drama through neutral or contrary event postings, and in the other thread about Roland's seeming plot armor. There are some finer thoughts I could break down here on the forums (I've only rewritten this about five times today), or if Temi/staff are interested, privately over Discord.

Very happy to discuss further in the best option for you - here, in game, discord.

[Kuzco]

I do also feel like -- if this is where we are now, though, there is a disconnect in what the PC side of this situation gauges as a 'cost'. People seem very willing to hurl their IP and QP at the wall to try and deal with this and consider that the cost; but there has been a deep and ongoing aversion to courses of action that, for instance, involve ethical or moral compromise, or might somehow provoke danger.

Granted, I think that part of the problem here is that it's really difficult to gauge the actual cost or risk levels of many actions --- we have only really seen the extreme ends of the spectrum (extreme danger, low chance of extreme reward -- low danger, high chance of little or no reward).

This is a great point that should be heavily considered. IP and money is negligible, can be easily replaced, it's like trying to solve world poverty through sole charity. Cost is hard choices and missed opportunities.

[Whateverosaur]

I am all for making hard choices, don't get me wrong, but when spending IP and QP and money on opportunities to discover something actionable don't give choices, I'm sort of left with spinning wheels. I'm not sure why I'm suspected of not wanting to make hard choices. My frustrations stem from a lack of actionable options from the QP, IP, GP, RP, and time I am spending.

[plague]

When people are given resources that represent in-character action, they generally expect that these resources will be useful. Money - or rather, logistics, supplies, resources - and influence - popular support and the capacity to sway society - are quite close enough to the things that make the world go 'round. If they're *negligible,* that's not a problem with people who want to spend them; it's a problem with the systems which produce and utilize them. We don't have a troop system, fortifications, levels of equipment for armies, relationship points, mechanical spies and intelligence, or any number of other mechanical systems which make it easy to contextualize control over the gameworld; these are our only representations of how much clout our characters really have.

We have money, IP, and the time that we spend playing the game and interacting with other characters. And maybe mechanical items. And also QP, I guess, but that's really an OOC resource. What's the other resource? Player characters, I suppose. A war? How many people want to put up their characters to dice rolls and arbitration for nebulous, historically-questionably-useful effect? How many characters are even useful in such a degree? Is sending seventeen Bard apprentices to Vandago and having them play music until the Duchess is happy and everyone holds hands while a pyre burns in the distance an option, for instance? (facetious) What kind of reward do people expect from interacting with such a system, other than effects upon an "outside world" which, in 95% of cases, has almost zero effect on their day-to-day RP so long as it's "out of sight, out of mind?" How can they expect such a sacrifice to be worth sacrificing if they don't know either the weight of that sacrifice or the effect it could have?

Money and IP are the only things which players are comfortable spending because they are the only things that players can reasonably weigh the value of compared to their effects. If money and IP aren't good enough sacrifices, then perhaps those resources are part of the problem. Without some sort of concrete mediator between players and the rest of the gameworld, it's all one big, ephemeral abstraction with infinitely less structure than they know what to do with. There's no game to be played unless there are rules to it; people don't know what rules they're playing under until they're already bought in. As humans, we're naturally risk averse when there is no reasonable expectation of expected cost and benefit. Few will find themselves capable of making a move in such a situation.

[Geras]

Suggestion: A minor wound from the struggle with Ianthe gets infected and Roland dies.